THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


MEETING 43 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


The verbatim transcript of the 43rd 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on Jan. 11, 2007. 

 

2 

 7 

C O N T E N T S
 

Jan. 11, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 


STATUS OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS 12 


MONSANTO AND GENERAL ATOMICS SEC PETITIONS 16 


CLARIFICATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL ISSUES 56 


WORKING GROUP UPDATES 67 


FUTURE TASKS FOR SC&A 95 


LETTER FROM CONGRESS 124 


ROCKY FLATS SEC 132 


FERNALD 144 

MONSANTO AND GENERAL ATOMICS DRAFTS 147 


FUTURE MEETINGS 153 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 160 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


LOCKEY, James, M.D. 


Professor, Department of Environmental Health 


College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


STAFF
 

LASHAWN SHIELDS, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 

6 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

BARKER, KAY, ANWAG 


BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAG 


BEACH, JOSIE, FUTURE ABRWH MEMBER 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON OFFICE 


CHANG, C, NIOSH 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


JESSEN, KARIN, ORAU 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 


RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 


ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(11:00 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. ZIEMER: Let's begin then. I'll call the meeting 


to order, ask that -- well, first of all, thank 


you, everyone, for -- for participating in this 


phone meeting of the Advisory Board on 


Radiation and Worker Health. This is our 


official meeting, meeting 43. 


The roll call will be held here in a minute by 


Lew. We'll identify Board members present and 


also potential Board members, as -- and then 


some other staff. So Lew, would -- do you want 


to proceed with the roll call? 


 DR. WADE: Right, I'll -- I'll start with Brad 


Clawson. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Here. 


 DR. WADE: James Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Here. 


 DR. WADE: James Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Here. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8

 DR. WADE: John Poston? 


 (No response) 


I received, indirectly, a note from Dr. Poston 


that he would not be with us. 


 Mark Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Mark. Mike Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Paul Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Here. 


 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Here. 


 DR. WADE: And last but not least, Wanda Munn? 


 MS. MUNN: Here. 


 DR. WADE: And we do have two Board members who 


have been named, not seated, Josie Beach -- 


Josie, are you with us? 


MS. BEACH: I'm here. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. And Phillip Schofield? 


 (No response) 


Well, we expect Phillip, but he's not with us 


yet. And Ray Green is here and ready to begin 


the proceedings, I assume -- Ray? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir. 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade, who is the -- I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

serve with pride as the Designated Federal 


Official for the Advisory Board. 


I would ask that the NIOSH representatives who 


are -- will -- are expected to participate in 


the call identify themselves. 


 (No responses) 


Is Larry Elliott on the line? 


 (No response) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Ron Hinnefield (sic)? 


DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton on the line. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Neton, okay. Hi, Jim. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Jim. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Anyone else from NIOSH that 


participate--


DR. NETON: I'm calling from home so I -- I 


don't know where they are right now, but I 


assume they're going to get on. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I've traded several e-mails 


with Larry this morning, so they're around. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I was on the phone with him 


just ten minutes ago, so I'm sure they'll join 


us. Let me --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Lew, this is Stu Hinnefeld and 


LaVon Rutherford. We're here, and Larry will 


join us in a couple of minutes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10

 DR. WADE: Thank you, Stu and LaVon, welcome. 


The SC&A team that will participate? 


 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow from SC&A. 


DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 


 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling and Kathy Behling, 


SC&A. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Fine. Are there any other federal 


employees who are on the call by virtue of 


their employment? I'd like them to identify 


themselves so we all know that you're here. 


 DR. ULSH: Lew, this is Brant Ulsh. I'm on the 


line, too. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Brant. 


 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell from HHS. 


 MS. JESSEN: Karin Jessen from ORAU. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. 


MS. CHANG: Chia Chia Chang, NIOSH. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus with HHS. 


 MR. BROEHM: Jason Broehm, CDC Washington. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch with the Department of 


Labor. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Jeff, always a pleasure to 


have you with us. 


 Are there any workers or worker 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

representatives, members of Congress or their 


staff who would like to be identified for the 


record? 


 MS. BARKER: Kay Barker with ANWAG. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Kay. 


 MS. BARRIE: Terrie Barrie with ANWAG. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you for being with us, Terrie. 


If there was someone who spoke after Terrie, I 


couldn't hear them. 


 (No response) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, then I think we're ready to 


proceed, Lew, are we not? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, the only thing I would ask is 


to remind everyone of some basic rules of 


etiquette. You know, mute your phone if you're 


not actively involved in the discussion. Even 


if you are actively involved in the discussion, 


do it with the handset if you can, as opposed 


to a speaker phone. Realize that there are all 


kinds of background noises that you might be 


used to that can be very distracting to people 


on the phone. If you have a phone where you 


put it on hold or something and there's 


background music, realize that. Every once in 


a while we're left with -- with background 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

music that we can't stop. So I think these 


calls are important for the Board to continue 


its business in a timely way, but we need to 


practice good phone etiquette and I appreciate 


that in advance. 


So with that, Paul, it's yours. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Lew. Let me ask first, 


are there any Board members who did not get a 


copy of the agenda? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, I'm assuming by the silence that everyone 


has a copy. 


 Members of the public, if you do not have a 


copy of the agenda, it is on the web site so 


you can pull that up and -- and have that 


before you. The agenda times that are listed 


in -- in the roster of -- of items are 


approximate. We will just proceed through the 


agenda as it's given. Some items may take more 


time than estimated, some may take less. The 


outside time for adjournment is 3:45, but if 


things go smoothly we may be able to finish 


earlier than that. 


STATUS OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS
 

So with that, let us proceed to the first item 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

after the introductions, and that is the status 


of the new Board members. I think you're all 


aware that Josie Beach and Phillip Schofield 


have been named by the White House as new 


members of the Board. There's some paperwork 


involved in actually getting them seated. 


Lew, can you give us a quick update on where we 


stand on the new members and when we might 


anticipate their being fully seated and 


participants in the Board? 


 DR. WADE: I'll do the best I can. First, 


Phillip Schofield, who's got 21 years of 


experience at Los Alamos National Laboratory, 


extensive experience in handling and processing 


plutonium and americium, and then Josie Beach, 


who currently is a nuclear chemical operator 


with CH2M Hill at the tank farms in Richland, 


Washington. The President has named these two 


fine individuals. He's also stated his 


intention to have them appointed to the 


Advisory Board. That appointment process is 


ongoing as we speak, so these people are not 


yet seated. We're trying to move with dispatch 


and would like to ascertain the possibility 


that they could be seated for the February 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

meeting. That's not a given. I can't imagine 


they would not be seated by the May meeting, 


but we haven't ruled out the possibility of -- 


of moving paperwork as quickly as we can to 


have them seated in February. 


I've spoken to both of the individuals and even 


if they're not seated in February, I do think 


it's appropriate that they come to the meeting, 


you know, on the government's ticket, and 


witness the meeting -- either as seated members 


or not -- so that they can certainly start 


their tenure moving. We're also working with 


Dr. Ziemer to try and schedule some orientation 


for new Board members in Cincinnati, and I 


think we're looking at sometime the end of this 


month to try and get that done. We would 


proceed with the -- the training, even if the 


members weren't seated, in anticipation of 


their being seated. 


So maybe February, certainly by the face-toface in -- in May. I would certainly hope by 


the Board call on April 5th, as a matter of 


fact. 


Now again, they're not seated at this point and 


therefore there's certain materials that we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

share with seated Board members that we would 


not be able to share with them. But everything 


we would share with the public we would 


certainly share with Josie and Phillip. We're 


-- we're thrilled to have them join us. This 


is a -- a very hardworking Board that, as it's 


gotten deeper and deeper into its 


deliberations, its work has expanded and it 


needs -- it needs fresh -- fresh minds, fresh 


hands to -- to carry the load, and we're 


thrilled with these two individuals and the 


expertise they bring. 


DR. ROESSLER: Lew, this is Gen. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Gen. 


DR. ROESSLER: Whenever it's appropriate, I 


think it would be helpful to the rest of the 


Board to get bios from the new -- for the new 


Board members. 


 DR. WADE: We will do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We can certainly distribute those. 


I think the bios are actually on the web site 


now. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: That's correct, Dr. Ziemer. 


 DR. WADE: Correct, and we'll e-mail everyone 


bios. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

DR. ROESSLER: Okay. If they're -- you say 


they are on the web site? 


 DR. ZIEMER: They are on the web site. They 


are listed as members, but not yet seated -- 


DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- but they're in process. There 


are brief bios there. They're about the length 


of the ones that yours are, as well. Okay? 


DR. ROESSLER: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any questions on the new members? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Well, again, we welcome them and we're 


looking forward to having their active 


participation with the Board. 


MONSANTO AND GENERAL ATOMICS SEC PETITIONS
 

Now we have two items that are carry-overs from 


our last meeting. One is the SEC -- the 


Monsanto SEC petition recommendation. The 


other is the General Atomics SEC petition 


recommendation. You may recall at the last 


Board meeting that we agreed to defer final 


action on these until this phone meeting in 


order to give us an opportunity to clarify some 


questions on the wording, as well as some 


information on -- on the additional -- well, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

let's see, there was some additional 


information that was expressed needed for 


General Atomics. In any event, you should have 


received now from Dr. Melius the revised 


wording on both of these. Does everyone have 


the current draft on Monsanto and General 


Atomics? 


DR. ROESSLER: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Or anyone who didn't get them, let 


me know quickly. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Dr. Ziemer, this is Brad. I -- I 


did get it, but it got messed up in the e-mail 


somehow. If anybody could send that to me, I 


would be (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'll tell you -- I believe 


this is correct, and Jim, you can correct me if 


I'm wrong -- but I think the final version -- 


the wording was as it was corrected toward the 


end of our actual meeting. Is that not 


correct? 

 DR. MELIUS: 

-

Yeah -- fairly close except some ­

 DR. ZIEMER: I mean there was some typos and 

some -- I mean capitalizations and some 


editorial things. I put them side by side and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

it looked like the words were identical. 


 DR. WADE: Brad, this is Lew. I will send you 


the e-mail right now. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. It just -- when I went to 


open it, it opened up in gibberish to me, 


that's all. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now let's -- let's begin with 


Monsanto, and based on our previous action and 


our agreement that these would come to us at 


this meeting, I'll consider this a motion 


that's before the assembly for discussion, and 


let me also call attention to a -- an e-mail 


distributed by Pete Turic from the Department 


of Labor. 


 DR. WADE: Turcic. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Turcic, yeah. I know a -- I know 


a Peter Turic, as well. Pete Turcic. And on 


the Monsanto -- as I read what Pete said, it 


appeared that he felt there was some ambiguity 


in the statement of the exclusions in the -- in 


the first bullet. And I think -- as I read it, 


I think Pete may be right, that where it says 


"other than polonium and external exposures to 


neutrons," it sounds like the neutron exposures 


are doable rather than not doable. I think 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

there is some ambiguity there, but that -- at 


that point I'm simply calling attention to 


Pete's comment and then opening it for 


discussion, so --


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. I read it 


incorrectly the first time and I agree with 


Pete. It does need some rewriting. It -- you 


can't really tell if the neutrons go with the 


"not able to reconstruct" or whether they go 


with the can do. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. LOCKEY: This is Jim Lockey. I agree with 

that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: If -- if there's a consensus that 


there's a little confusion there, I have -- I ­

- I am prepared to offer some alternative 


wording. 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. I also have 


some wording in two places that I should -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is this one of them? 


 DR. MELIUS: (Unintelligible) of them, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, why don't you proceed then 


and then -- then the Chair can determine 


whether he thinks his wording is better than 


your wording. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20

 DR. MELIUS: (Broken transmission) Yeah, excuse 


me, I think the Board (unintelligible). 
I 


don't think it (unintelligible) -- there -- 


there were (unintelligible) places I thought 


it'd be (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. You're breaking up 


on my phone. I -- is it just me or -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, it's on mine, too. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Same here. 


 (Several Board members simultaneously confirmed 


the transmission difficulties.) 


 DR. MELIUS: (Broken transmission) Okay, I'll 


(unintelligible) try later. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is he going to re-call in? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, he said he's going to another 


-- into the other office and call from -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: And call back in, yeah. 


 DR. LOCKEY: It sounded like he was on a cell 


phone. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, yeah, it sounded that way or ­

- at least he was breaking up for me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Yeah, he was for me, too. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

Were there other comments while we're waiting 


for him to come back on the line? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is -- this is Stu 


Hinnefeld at NIOSH. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, Stu. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: While we're waiting, I believe 


one source of ambiguity or confusion is in the 


first bulleted paragraph, about the third line 


from the bottom, fourth and third lines from 


the bottom --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, that's exactly what we're 


talking about. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- where it says "other than 


polonium and external exposures to neutrons." 


It sounds like external exposures to neutrons 


might go with the "other than." 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, that's exactly the point 


we're making, that we do -- we do think you 


could interpret it either way, and I think 


that's the point that Pete Turcic was making, 


as well. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's true. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I think so. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius again -- hear 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

me better? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's better. 


 MS. MUNN: Much better. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead, Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: (Broken transmission) Yeah, yeah, 


there -- places. The first is the last 


sentence of the sec-- --graph, and I will read 


it and I'll sort of highlight -- changes are 


made. They're sort of minor. 


 First (unintelligible) is that the Board notes 


that although NIOSH fund that they were unable 


(unintelligible) these employees, they believe 


that they are able to reconstruct 


(unintelligible) of the internal dose -- 


parentheses, i.e., (unintelligible) exposures 


and external dose -- parentheses, with the 


exception of (unintelligible) exposures, close 


parentheses and there (unintelligible) indiv-- 


(unintelligible) cancers may be considered for 


partial dose reconstructions. 


 The changes are just (unintelligible). 


 MS. MUNN: Jim, you're going to hate to hear 


this from me, but you might as well. You're 


still breaking up. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23

 DR. MELIUS: Then I'm not going to be able to 


participate in the call today. Sorry. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, don't say that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, we're --


 DR. MELIUS: I don't have a choice. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll try to work through it. So 


the -- after the word "internal," you would put 


parentheses, "i.e., polonium exposures"? And 


then -- and then what was after that? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Dr. Ziemer, after the words 


"and external dose," there's another 


parenthesis that -- that says "with the 


exception of neutron exposures," close 


parentheses. 


DR. ROESSLER: Wanda, I think you hurt his 


feelings. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So it was suggested -- 


The suggested change was "reconstruct 


components of the internal dose, i.e., polonium 


exposures, and external dose (with the 


exception of neutron" -- it's neutron for 


workers in -- do we have to add the workers in 


I, II and III -- or I, II and IV -- I, III and 


IV, or just neutrons? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Just neutrons. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we can leave it at 


neutrons because I believe the, you know, II, 


III and --


 DR. ZIEMER: Those are the only ones that have 


it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- earlier in the paragraph. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the word "exposures" 


follows "neutron" there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, these are both 


clarifications. They are -- is there any 


objection to that as a friendly amendment, and 


then, without objection, we'll consider that an 


amendment for the -- for that second paragraph. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, can -- can someone read it all 


the way through? Stu, it sounds like you have 


the --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I have a copy of it. 


 MS. MUNN: -- the real thing there. Could 


someone please read it all the way through the 


way it -- that Jim proposed we reword it? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The sentence now reads 


(reading) The Board notes that although NIOSH 


found that they were unable to completely 


reconstruct radiation doses for these 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

employees, they believe they are able to 


reconstruct components of the internal dose 


(i.e., polonium exposures) and external dose 


(with the exception of neutron exposures), and 


therefore individuals with non-presumptive 


cancers may be considered for partial dose 


reconstructions. 


 MS. MUNN: Great. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Thanks. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So without objection, we'll take 


that as a friendly amendment. 


Then down in the bullet itself we probably need 


something similar. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Dr. Ziemer, we -- I think we 


might be able to fix it by moving external 


exposure to neutrons to the front of the 


clause. For instance, then it would -- then 


the sentence would read "NIOSH found that it 


did not have access to sufficient information, 


including personnel dosimetry, workplace 


monitoring data, or sufficient process and 


radiological source information, that would 


allow it to estimate with sufficient accuracy 


the -- and here's the change -- the external 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

exposures to neutrons and the internal 


exposures to radionuclides other than 


polonium... 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, that makes sense. 


 DR. ZIEMER: For workers... 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, that sounds good. I hope 


Jim comes back on. 


 MS. MUNN: I hope so, too. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, here again, are you 


suggesting we just leave out the Units I, III 


and IV? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I think -- no, you continue 


on the way it's written there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But don't those only apply to the 


neutrons? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No. No, that's the --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, those are the three 


buildings that are the plant, they're -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay, so it doesn't matter 


then. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, why don't then -- why don't 


we put the I, III and IV, 'cause -- 'cause 


otherwise --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it sounds like it's only a part 


-- a part of it --


 MR. HINNEFELD: All right, so you can 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- why don't we move that to the 


front so it would say that NIOSH found that for 


workers in Units I, III and IV it did not have 


access to sufficient information -- or -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, that would do it. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Read that sentence again -- can 


you read it over again? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, can you read it with those 


changes that you just -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can try. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Beginning where it says "NIOSH 


found" -- NIOSH found that, for workers in 


Units I, III or IV at the facility, it did not 


have access to sufficient information, 


including personnel dosimetry, workplace 


monitoring data, or sufficient process and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

radiological source information, that would 


allow it to estimate with sufficient accuracy 


the external exposures to neutrons and the 


internal exposures to radionuclides other than 


polonium. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, again, that's a friendly 


amendment intended to clarify. Are there any 


objections to that? 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I -- Jeff Kotsch is on the 


line. Jeff, do you know if that would satisfy 


Pete's concerns? 


 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, that -- that -- that sounds 


fine to me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. I might suggest 


to the staff that if Stu could take that draft 


as agreed to and then e-mail it to all the 


Board members and to Pete, we do have a time 


later on the agenda when we complete our other 


deliberations to review these SEC write-ups. 


This would give people an opportunity to have 


it in front of them. 


 DR. LOCKEY: That would be helpful for me. 


 DR. WADE: Stu, could we impose upon you to do 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

that? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can cert-- I certainly can. 


I think there's a place here pretty soon where 


I can go back in my office and do that. 


 DR. WADE: Then I would ask if you would -- 


Jeff, I would assume it would be okay with you 


if we sent it to Pete, as well? 


 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, that'd be fine. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. And then send it to the 


attorneys. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me ask if there's any other 


suggested changes in the wording? 


 (No responses) 


If -- if not, then let us defer action -- 


motions till later in the meeting, without 


objection we'll simply defer action. It has 


the effect of a temporary tabling, but I'm not 


going to call for a vote on it. We'll simply 


agree that we'll table that temporarily until 


we have the copy of the final wording before us 


from Stu's e-mailing. 


 And then let's proceed to the General Atomics 


item, which comes to us also in essence as a 


motion before the assembly. Does everyone have 


a copy of the current draft of that one? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. In connection with this, 


Stu also distributed this past week some clari­

- classifications and locations of the 


buildings. There were some questions I think 


Pete had raised whether there were other 


buildings on the site that could be involved. 


And in answer to that, I think -- based on 


Stu's chart -- the answer to that must be yes, 


there are several buildings that are non-


radiological buildings and Stu's identified 


those in his chart. Those are the library and 


cafeteria, technical office building 13, 


technical office east building 14 and build-- 


technical office east building 15. All of 


those are non-radiological areas and I -- I 


believe it was our understanding that if -- if 


Labor was unable to place someone exclusively 


in those buildings, then they would have to 


assume that they might be in the other 


buildings as well. At least that was my 


understanding. I don't know, Jeff, if you have 


any comments on that -- Jeff Kotsch from Labor. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, that's correct, that's 

correct. 

 DR. ZIEMER: That -- those -- those other 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

buildings, although they're there, are not 


identified in the document. We only identified 


the buildings where the radiological work took 


place. 


 Now there's one other question I want to raise 


on that, and that is in the -- in the chart 


there's a building called -- it's building -- 


there's an area called the experimental area 


for building two. That area's not listed in 


the -- in our document. We do have science 


laboratories A and B and C for building two. 


We do not have experimental area building two. 


My question is, is the experimental area 


different from the science labs A, B and C? 


Stu, do you know the answer to that? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We have --


 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause the document only talks 


about science areas A, B and C. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We don't believe that's a 


different area. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Than -- than what, Stu -- 


different area than what? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, that -- roughly that 


building two experimental area is a different 


area than those other building two things that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

were expressed right there. 


 DR. LOCKEY: You mean laboratory A, B and C? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, this is Ray. 


Who was that speaking with Stu? Was that Dr. 


Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Okay, thank you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. Am I to 


understand that laboratory A, B and C are the 


same as building two? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Bob, this is LaVon Rutherford. 


We're going to get that matrix out and -- and I 


will get right back with you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. In -- in the matrix that 


Stu just distributed, the second item on the 


matrix is science labs A, B and C. And then on 


page four of the matrix separately is listed 


experimental area, building two. The -- the 


type of work done in the experimental areas 


says it was unknown, whereas science labs A, B 


and C (unintelligible) AEC weapons work done. 


So it sounds like the experimental area may be 


a different area. And my question is, if we 


don't include it in the listing, is it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

therefore an area that is not covered by the 


SEC? Or another way of putting that is should 


it be covered by the SEC. 


 DR. LOCKEY: This is Jim Lockey. I think to 


avoid any ambiguity, you should just include 


it, 'cause it seems to me it would be similar 


to the experimental building, building nine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That was -- that was my thought, 


because the other buildings where the type of 


work was unknown has -- had been included. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And if that's the case, to 


eliminate the ambiguity we could simply put 


science labs A, B and C and experimental area, 


building two. 


 DR. LOCKEY: This is Jim Lockey. I concur with 

that. 

 DR. ZIEMER: The others of you? 

 MS. MUNN: I'm having a hard time pulling up 


the -- the matrix, and where can I find Stu's 


matrix? 


 DR. ZIEMER: He distributed that within the 


last few days. Let me see if I -- e-mail dated 


January 8th. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. I'll get it then. I thought 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

I'd seen it but I sure couldn't find it. 


The other -- is Stu -- is Stu on the line now 


or has he gone off with the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I'm here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, also could you clarify in -- 


in our -- in our document for the waste yards, 


we say building 25 and six in the narration. 


Building 26 doesn't appear in the matrix. So 


that was a separate question I had. Where you 


-- on page 3 where you show the waste yard 


buildings, you say building 25, is -- shouldn't 


building 26 be included there in the matrix? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I would say it -- it probably 


should be, based upon the spreadsheet I had out 


along with this work table, the spreadsheet 


listed a building -- a number of radioactive 


materials that were apparently present in 


building numbers 26. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah. Building 26 shows up 


on that -- on that sheet, but it doesn't show 


up on your chart on page -- well, on any of the 


pages there. I assumed when you said waste 


yard buildings, plural, and only listed 25 that 


probably you had -- probably 26 should have 


been included. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So -- so maybe everyone should 


just add that to that then. 


Any other comments on the General Atomics 


draft? 


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. Are -- are we 


finished with the buildings discussion? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- I guess I was sort of 


waiting for confirmation that the experimental 


area should be included, I -- 


DR. ROESSLER: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is LaVon still checking that out? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, one -- one 

moment. 

(Pause) 

 DR. ZIEMER: And while -- while you're looking 


at that, maybe I'll ask Jeff Kotsch again -- 


Jeff, we're -- I think from Labor's point of 


view we're okay in not mentioning in this 


document the other buildings. Right? We don't 


have to say that there were other buildings 


where non-- where non-radiological work was 


done, do we? 


 MR. KOTSCH: No, I --


 DR. ZIEMER: As long as we identify where -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

the buildings that are covered. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And then if you can't put someone 


exclusively in the other buildings, then you 


include them. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, then we would just include 


them as being employed on the -- the site as a 


whole. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Ziemer, this is LaVon 


Rutherford. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think we agree with -- that 


in order to make sure we cover the area, to 


include both building number two and the 


laboratory A, B and C as -- into the 


definition. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So -- so in the statement where we 


say science labs A, B and C, should we add "and 


experimental area"? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any objections? 

 MS. MUNN: No. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And then we've agreed that 

building 26 as -- as given in our narrative is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

okay, that should have been in -- on the matrix 


as well. 


 Any other issues on this one? 


DR. ROESSLER: Are we still on the buildings or 


can I --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, any other questions, yeah -- 


items. 


 DR. WADE: Oh, is -- is Mark on the phone? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm on the phone. I -- I 


just didn't know at what point you were opening 


up the discussion overall -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Or any other issues, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I mean I guess we -- I 


did talk to NIOSH in the interim on the General 


Atomics and Monsanto, and you know, the -- the 


one thing we went over -- one -- one question 


in General Atomics was the laboratories and the 


concern over consistency with how we were 


treating, you know, analytical labs probably 


likely to have little chance of exposures -- at 


least we -- you know, we would think. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that was -- that was the 


question that was --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- discussed at the last meeting 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

is if it really was an analytical lab, how 


would they have enough activity to -- to cause 


a --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- significant exposure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess the dilemma with the lab 


personnel was a couple of things. One was the 


-- the source term question. You know, they -- 


in the other cases that we had, like for Y-12 


we had a lab and we particularly didn't include 


the thorium for the lab workers because we had 


a well-known source term that -- that you could 


use to sort of bound the upper limits of the 


potential exposure. In this case they had a 


couple of source terms and they didn't really 


know the quantities over time. And also the 


other thing was just where these lab employees 


might have worked, in and out of the labs. You 


know, it would be hard to sort of determine, 


you know, or -- or bound their potential 


exposures that way. So that -- that was -- 


the rationale was described to me a little 


better, you know, on a call with NIOSH last 


week I think it was. 


And -- and then the other question that I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

discussed with them was the -- you know, to me, 


the question was you've got all these data, it 


appeared to be like 400 boxes of data and, you 


know, just a chance to see a little more and -- 


and Stu and -- and others provided these 


matrices to give us a little better idea of how 


much data -- how much relevant data they had 


and didn't have. And I don't know if you have 


this -- Paul, I'm not sure which spreadsheets ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I have --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Stu has a separate chart 


that's listed by radionuclides -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: By radionuclides, right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and which buildings they were 


used in. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And that does give a sense of, 


you know, what -- what sort of data that they 


have and hadn't -- didn't have, so you know, 


there were 400 boxes of data, but it seems that 


for certain -- especially for some 


radionuclides, there's very limited data, at 


least according to their review here, very 


limited data, you know, by which to do a -- a ­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

- to reconstruct dose. So that was -- that was 


a little more information to sort of base our 


determination on. I felt more comfortable 


knowing that they had some specifics here of 


what they did as far as their review of the 


documents. 


 MS. MUNN: That's a pretty broad review, 


actually. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the -- the only -- you 


know, the -- the one -- I guess the question I 


had was there -- there was -- you know, on 


first glance at some of the raw reports, I 


found a lot of what I -- what I -- and what 


seemed to be a lot of individuals' specific in 


vivo results, and individuals' specific 


bioassay cards. But they were quick to point 


out there was nothing -- no procedures were 


found and no laboratory procedures were found, 


and they really had -- all you had was cards 


with number-- with names and numbers on them, 


but no real way to -- how to (unintelligible) 


what those numbers meant. Right? Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So there was a lot of data there, 


but there was a ha-- it was hard to put it into 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

any kind of perspective. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that made me feel a lot more 


comfortable with their conclusion as well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And then separately we had 


that issue of if someone really was working 


only in an analytical lab, but it also appeared 


that it's very difficult to pin down that they 


were only in that, though that would be -- if ­

- if we knew that the analytical lab had 


limited activity, we could -- and Labor could 


handle it like they did the other areas -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- say okay, if we could put a 


person exclusively in there, that would be 


different from whether they could have. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And I guess --


 DR. ZIEMER: At this point we don't have source 


term information even on the analytical lab, 


although --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- although, by its very nature, 


it's still a little hard to conceive that one 


would have sources in an analytical lab that 


would be sufficient to cause significant 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

exposures or you can't do your analyses. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a -- at least some of 


these labs apparently had up to gram quantities 


of plutonium, and these were more like 


production control laboratories and things like 


that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- rather than (unintelligible) 


lab and environmental -- or analytical 


laboratories. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, any further comments or 


discussion on the General Atomics item? 


DR. ROESSLER: I have a comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Gen. 


DR. ROESSLER: In the second paragraph right 


below the buildings discussion -- and this is ­

- we need to be absolutely clear on what NIOSH 


can do and can't do so we know what category 


people fall into, and I think it might make it 


a little clearer where it says "they believe 


that they are able to reconstruct components of 


external dose" I'm assuming that's all 


components. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, I don't think it's all, is it? 


NIOSH -- I -- I would interpret that as being 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

some components, that it would -- it would vary 


from case to case. Who's -- who's there from 


NIOSH that can speak to that? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Dr. Ziemer, this is LaVon 


Rutherford. I believe we indicated in our 


evaluation report that we can do all external 


dose. 


DR. ROESSLER: Well, then it appears it's not 


clear if -- if that's the case, we should 


insert the word "all" there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm sorry, I was -- I was trying 


to talk -- or -- or just drop off "components 


of" --


 DR. ZIEMER: "Components" --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- maybe just put --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- itself --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- "reconstruct". 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- implies parts. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Sounds like better to take 


"components" out -- then they're able to 


reconstruct internal dose and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right, that's what I'd say. 


 MS. MUNN: -- and internal dose. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I like that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

better. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So they were unable to completely 


reconstruct doses -- they believe they are able 


to reconstruct the external dose -- 


 MS. MUNN: The external dose. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is that what you're saying? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- and the internal dose. 


DR. ROESSLER: If that would make it clearer -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: And portions -- and portions of 


the internal dose, or... 


 DR. ZIEMER: And there, portions are 


components, right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Component, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, the -- that's instructive 


inside the paren -- it's specifying which -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- parts of the internal dose can be 


done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So would this be agreeable then, 


that it would say "they believe they are able 


to reconstruct the external dose and components 


of the internal dose (those from uranium and 


tritium for some time periods) and -- et 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

cetera? 


 MS. MUNN: Better. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I agree. 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, I like that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley, I agree. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Take that as a friendly amendment 


then that clarifies that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I just have one -- one 


comment on that sentence, too, and it gets back 


to this -- sort of a policy or -- it -- it 


comes up in Monsanto and in this one, this -- 


this "they believe" part, and you know, in 


having these discussions with NIOSH earlier 


this week there's a couple of things came out 


of it. One, for Monsanto, they believe they 


can reconstruct polonium exposures, and I don't 


doubt that, they have quite a bit of data for 


it. But when -- when I pursued that further, 


they said that the coworker model had not yet 


been completed and wasn't ready for our review. 


So I guess the question I had from a -- you 


know, I think that we need to move these 


forward, but we're actually being given a -- a 


sort of -- I guess a not complete evaluation. 


You know, that there's a -- a piece that they 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

think they can --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- do. I know that's why the 


"they believe" is in there, but -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, but keep in mind that if it 


turns out that they can't, it doesn't change 


much because if they can't it throws the person 


back into the Special Exposure Cohort anyway -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and they're already in there 


for the presumptive cancers, so these would 


only apply to people with non-presumptive 


anyway. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, and -- and 

let --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- me speak to this a bit. You 

know, the -- the question that we're answering 


here is is there any component for the 


radiation dose for all workers that we cannot 


reconstruct. We feel that our evaluation 


reports are complete in answering that 


question. We've identified what we've 


recognized at this point in time what we can't 


reconstruct and we -- yes, we have not finished 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

out looking at -- at the coworker model or the 


distribution doses that will be used to handle 


dose reconstructions -- partial dose 


reconstructions for the non-presumptive claims. 


But as we go through that, you know, we'll sort 


all of that out and it -- and it presents no 


harm to anyone at this point. The only harm 


that's presented is if we hold this -- this -- 


the answer to this question until we flesh out 


all the other doses that we think we have 


enough data for. 


 DR. WADE: Right. Now this is Lew. I also 


think Mark's point is important and that the 


Board should only attest to what it believes. 


And in this case, if it is that NIOSH believes 


they can do it, the Board can pass that on. 


The Board is not saying that it has verified 


that or offers its opinion that NIOSH can do 


it. It just passes on the wording -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which in a sense leaves the door 


open for those -- at least partial dose 


reconstructions for the non-presumptive 


cancers. 


 DR. WADE: Right. And again, remember, NIOSH's 


attempt here is to do everything it can to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

serve everyone within the population. If NIOSH 


cannot, then they can't, and then there's no 


recourse for these people. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now Board members, any other 


comments or discussion on this document? 


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. I think it's a 


grammatical thing. In this sentence that Mark 


brings up where they say "they believe," I 


think it should be "it believes." The Board 


notes that although NIOSH found that -- well, 


here again --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh --


DR. ROESSLER: -- I think it's "it" or -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, is NIOSH an "it" or "they," is 


that what you're saying? 


DR. ROESSLER: I think it's "it" unless we say 


NIOSH members or staff or -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: It believes that they -- 


DR. ROESSLER: NIOSH found that it was unable 


to completely --


 MR. GRIFFON: How about "NIOSH believes"? 


DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, then you don't have to 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: We can do that, NIOSH believes 


that -- that "it" --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

DR. ROESSLER: Oh --


 MR. GRIFFON: No --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is able? 


DR. ROESSLER: Well, maybe we need some expert 


advice on that. I would say "it," but... 


 MS. MUNN: Well, since both of them are nongender-specific, the question is is it a plural 


or a singular? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Leave it to you, Paul. 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) "it" is, NIOSH 


believes it is able -- it's a collective noun. 


Now Board members, do you want to do the same 


thing with this and see the final wording 


before you vote, or are these sufficiently 


simple that you want to go ahead and vote on 


this one? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Paul --


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 DR. LOCKEY: -- Jim Lockey, the final wording 


on the -- on the Monsanto's on your web site 


now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


 DR. LOCKEY: So it may be just easier to take 


care of both of them right away. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, again, I'm asking do you -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

do you want to get a clean copy of this one or 


does everybody have the wording they need to -- 


to vote? 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew, I would prefer if -- if 


we could take a moment and get that wording in 


front of you, and also in front of our 


colleagues at the Department of Labor. I think 


it serves the process better. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Al-- also, Paul, I have one more 


question on General Atom-- I think it's on 


General Atomics. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: On the -- on the external dose, 


and I -- I thought I understood this but I just 


want to clarify on this phone call, saying that 


you can reconstruct all external dose, LaVo-- 


maybe this question's to -- to NIOSH, to LaVon 


Rutherford. Is this the site that you had 


external dose data but not necessarily by a 


individual identifier, or is this individual-


specific data that you have? 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yeah, Mark, this is LaVon 


Rutherford. We -- this is individual -- 


individual data and -- no, Monsanto was the one 


where the identifiers were in question during 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

the earlier period. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. So then -- then -- 


then maybe my question's for Monsanto. Do --


how -- how are the external -- the external 


doses there are being treated with a coworker 


model of sorts or... 


 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And that approach is what's 


completed. Right? Is that the spreadsheet 


that was --


 MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct, yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay, so I'm comfortable 


with that. So they -- there -- NIOSH in the 


interim did provide some more materials on the 


O drive and we did have an opportunity to 


review some of those, so I -- I just wanted to 


clarify that, that -- that General Atomics was 


not a coworker -- external -- coworker model 


for the external dose. They have all 


individual data. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, let's -- let's follow 


Lew's suggestion and we'll defer action on this 


till the -- a clean copy is distributed and 


that -- and again, can we do that from NIOSH? 


 DR. WADE: If -- Stu, can we impose -- or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

LaVon? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, I -- I'm trying -- I've 


made some notes here. I'm not sure I caught 


all the edits, though, so let me go through 


what I have and you can tell me if I've missed 


any. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm starting in the second 


paragraph, the -- on the fourth line, the 


sentence that starts "The Board respectfully 


recommends" and then later in that sentence 


there is a listing of the -- of the buildings. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We -- the "Science Laboratories 


A, B and C, and the experimental area" and then 


-- is there -- so you would insert "and 


experimental area" and then you would continue 


as it is. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, experimental area -- we 


deleted "Building 2"? 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, Building 2 --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Building 2 is here. Building 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

is already there, that's next. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, okay --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's in parentheses, but it 


really means "of Building 2". 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, okay, so "experimental area" 


comes before "Building 2". 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yeah, because "A, B and 


C" --


 MS. MUNN: Right. Right, I had inserted it in 


-- now I understand that. Okay. I had 


inserted it afterward. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And then the next edit I 


have goes down below -- well, it'd be I guess 


in the last --


 DR. ZIEMER: Last sentence. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) paragraph, 


"The Board notes that although NIOSH found that 


-- I guess this -- it would be "it is unable"? 


 MS. MUNN: Or "it was," as the case may be. 


DR. ROESSLER: That would be consistent -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, "it is." 


DR. ROESSLER: -- with the bullet below. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, "it is unable to completely 


reconstruct" --


 MR. HINNEFELD: "it is not able to completely 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

reconstruct radiation doses for these 


employees, NIOSH believes it is able to 


reconstruct the external dose" -- that was a 


change --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- "and -- an insertion -- 


"components of the internal dose" -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then it continues on as 


is. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And those are the ones that I 


have. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now as was indicated, the new 


Monsanto draft is on your -- or was distributed 


a few moments ago. I want to sort of advise 


everybody to keep these straight. They're not 


dated, so this one that Helen just distributed 


to everybody, mark it Rev. 1, January 11th, '07 


so you can distinguish it from the previous 


wording. Okay? Or something like that, keep 


them all straight. 


 So without objection now on the General 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

Atomics, we'll defer the action till later in 


the meeting after everyone has a copy -- a 


clean copy of the revision. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Stu. I just think it 


serves us better -- Stu, I know that Helen is 


sending this material out. If she could, for 


example, indicate an e-mail address -- possibly 


hers -- where he could respond with comments, 


should he have them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: In -- in fact, why don't you have 


her mark the top of that "Rev. 1" with today's 


date on it so we can get -- get that, as well. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now put an e-mail 


address for --


 DR. WADE: I'm just concerned that if Pete has 


a comment that is not on the call, I'd like him 


to -- I'd like to be able to hear his comment. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. KOTSCH: Lew, this is Jeff Kotsch. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. KOTSCH: I just spoke -- I just spoke with 


Pete and he -- he took a look at it and he has 


no com-- I mean we're -- we're fine with the 


definition for --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56

 DR. WADE: If Pete --


 MR. KOTSCH: -- Monsanto. 


 DR. WADE: -- (unintelligible) access to this 


call through Jeff, then we don't need an e-mail 


to clear it up. That's good. 


 MR. KOTSCH: I'll do that for the next one, 


too. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thanks -- thanks, Jeff. 


Okay, are we ready to proceed? Very good. 


CLARIFICATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL ISSUES
 

Next item is clarification of science and 


technical issues. We had a discussion at the 


last Board meeting on those issues and in fact 


on what we should call them. You should have 


received from -- from Jim Neton a document that 


is dated January 5th called "Clarification of 


Science and Technical Issues" and I guess -- 


Jim, are you going to lead us on that 


discussion or --


 DR. WADE: Is Jim on the line? 


DR. NETON: Hello? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I can do that. This should 


be fairly brief. As you pointed out, Dr. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

Ziemer, there was some concern by the Board at 


the Naperville meeting that NIOSH was -- was 


not tracking all the issues properly or all the 


issues that had been identified by prev-- in 


previous Board deliberations. And so we put 


out this fairly brief write-up that describes 


what we believe we have in-house tracked, and 


in fact at this point there are now two 


separate lists. Attached to one of the 


documents that was mailed out goes over the 


list of the working group research topics that 


was established way back in February I think of 


2003 -- or 2005, and those are particularly 


relevant to issues regarding IREP and the risk 


models, and we've identified those seven issues 


that we're tracking and provide a status 


update. 


And then more recently the Board identified 


what was -- I think has been -- come to be 


called overarching issues, and in looking at 


those, they are particularly related to dose 


reconstruction issues that have been identified 


either by SC&A or the Board or others that -- 


that affect multiple sites. And so they are 


two separate lists, although we will track them 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

collectively and report on them, and so this is 


really just provided as an information update 


as to what we have and the -- the promise that 


we will provide a -- an update on all these, 


where we stand, at the next face-to-face Board 


meeting, and certainly can entertain any 


questions about this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Jim. Board members, if 


you have those, just make sure you take a look. 


Attachment 1 to Jim's e-mail was the, quote, 


Research Topics, and we had prioritized those, 


you may recall, and Jim has shown that on the 


chart and given us a brief status report on all 


of those. 


And then Attachment 2 are those, as he 


described it, sort of issues relating to dose 


reconstruction -- oro-nasal breathing, those 


kinds of issues. 


DR. NETON: Right, I think the confusion arose 


because we had inadvertently included a 


discussion of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 


that overarching issues list, and so we kind of 


mixed modes on the Board and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and --


DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible). 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59

 DR. ZIEMER: -- and we had -- and we had really 


science issues with sort of procedural issues. 


DR. NETON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Jim, this is Lew. I'd like to 


suggest one addition to Attachment 2. Would it 


be possible to identify in another column where 


the issue was first brought forward, or the 


number of places the issue was brought forward. 


Some of these come from particular workgroups 


looking at site profiles, particular site 


profiles. I think it would be good to keep the 


-- sort of the continuity and the linkage 


between the individual workgroups and some of 


these overarching issues so if, for example, 


oro-nasal breathing came from Bethlehem and you 


run the list. It would be good to just keep 


that record somewhere. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, we could certainly do that. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, my, that would be confusing for 


me, having been on several workgroups that 


brought up similar kinds of issues -- 


 DR. WADE: The reason I --

 MS. MUNN: -- (unintelligible) at the same 

time. 

 DR. WADE: The reason I suggested it, I would 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

expect that the workgroup chairs really have in 


their matrix the fact that the -- an issue on 


ingestion, for example, was defined as an 


overarching issue. I'd like to keep the 


linkage between the workgroup where that came 


up and this matrix to be sure that we reach 


closure on everything as we go down. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Lew -- Lew, if I could suggest 


something slightly different, I would suggest 


that we capture in our position paper where the 


issue originated. But I would -- I like your 


idea of a column, but the column, as I would 


suggest it, should be where the issue has 


impact, across which sites or, you know, for 


which sites does this issue have potential 


impact. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, then the workgroups can 


identify from that, you're saying? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: That's fine, Larry. That's fine. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: If that's okay, in our position 


paper we'll identify where the issue 


originated, which working group or which site 


or if it came up in a dose reconstruction 


review -- however it originated, we'll place 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

that in the position paper. But we'll also in 


the position paper, as best we can, identify 


those sites or those processes that are 


impacted by the particular issue, and then we 


should track that in this column here so that 


we make sure that, you know, working group 


chairs can check off against it and NIOSH can 


check off against it to make sure that in our ­

- our Technical Basis Documents reflect the 


change made on a given issue. 


 DR. WADE: That's fine. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you. 


DR. NETON: In looking at this, though, it 


appears -- most -- all of these apply to all 


sites. 


 MS. MUNN: That's essentially what most of -- 


several of the working groups in which I was 


involved where we were discussing these things, 


that essentially was the -- the thought that we 


had, that these were issues which, for the most 


part, encompass the entire complex in one way 


or another. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- well, at least they 


encompass multiple sites, but for example, 


let's say hot particles, that probably is not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

an issue at every site. 


 MS. MUNN: No, I'm sure it isn't -- no, 


certainly not, but -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: But then --


 MS. MUNN: -- 300 sites. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- most of these certainly are 


multiple sites, at a minimum. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Again, my simple desire is when, for 


example, the workgroup on Site XYZ finishes 


their work and attests to the fact that their 


work is finished, if they had raised an issue 


like oro-nasal breathing, I would like to be 


able to have the linkage to the fact that it 


was raised by that workgroup and it was 


resolved through this process, so we can reach 


closure on the individual workgroup's activity. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley, Lew. Can I 


ask a question? 


 DR. WADE: Certainly. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is there any way that we could 


put a column in there that lets us know -- when 


you say literary or literature review is 


complete, but if that -- is it ready for the 


TBD document or has SC&A reviewed it? Where do 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

we stand? That would help me as a working 


group member and also a person that's leading a 


working group 'cause that's what we're looking 


for right now. That's one of the things that's 


holding us up is -- is where these things 


stand. 


 DR. WADE: It's a good point. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, we -- we could certainly 


provide a much better status report than we 


have in here. This was, you know, not mean to 


be all -- all complete at this point, but for ­

- certainly for the next Board meeting, which 


is in early February, we could -- we could 


update this, put a little more information in 


here. 


 MS. MUNN: That certainly would be 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. PRESLEY: That would help tremendously if 


we had some type of a status column. I mean --


well, you've got a status column, but -- 


DR. NETON: More complete status. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, this is a good first step, 


and we can add to it as we go. These are good 


suggestions. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

The other thing we want to identify is if 


there's anything that should be on either list 


that's been omitted -- and you may not notice 


anything now, but if something does arise, that 


can be added at any point. So this -- this can 


be an ongoing part of -- of the reporting by 


NIOSH to keep us apprised of -- of progress on 


these items. 


 DR. WADE: Right, I think our thought was that, 


at a minimum, Larry would cover this in his 


update. But if required, then there could be a 


special presentation -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: On a particular issue -- 


 DR. WADE: -- to focus more detail. 


 DR. ZIEMER: On a particular issue or on all of 


them. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Or on both, yeah. Okay. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Right, or any -- any new ones 


that appear with us. This is -- this has been 


part of our thing was -- status part of this is 


to be able to find out where we're at on them 


and so forth. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, just add new ones to it. 


 DR. WADE: But just again, just to share my 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

fear -- I mean workgroups identify issues and 


then they -- they're prepared to pass them off 


as overarching issues, and then they stop their 


tracking. I think it is important that we keep 


linkages to be sure that we're done only until 


we're done. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that was one of our primary 


concerns I think at workgroup level is once 


it's out of our hands, how do we keep track of 


it. 


 When we're talking about badges in our 


overarching issues -- this is only a suggestion 


at the time for contemplation, but when we're ­

- we identify cohort badging and interpretation 


of unworn badge results, one of the -- one of 


the badge issues that has come up several times 


has been the handling of badges, and I don't 


know whether we can -- can dilute that down to 


-- reduce that to its essence so that we can 


identify exactly what we mean by that. But 


when there seems to be recurring concerns from 


one site to the other whether badges are 


handled correctly by the interpreters and by 


the individuals or (unintelligible) that had 


responsibility for them between exposure time, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

is that of sufficient magnitude for us to 


consider it in the overarching dose 


reconstruction issues? 


DR. NETON: Wanda, this is Jim. My -- my 


thought on that is that seems to be a site-


specific issue, though. I can't think of a 


generic position that we could take on that, 


other than to review the site-specific 


protocols and to deal with them accordingly. 


 MS. MUNN: I think you're absolutely correct. 


It certainly is a site-specific issue, but it 


does seem to come up often, whether it was done 


properly or not. 


DR. NETON: Possibly we could do something 


like, you know, what are the relevant factors 


to consider, or something like that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Yeah, it obviously is -- 


generically is a question at every site, but 


the --the specifics of it are -- are very 


localized. If at some point we need to have 


some sort of a -- a protocol for assessing 


that, that would be overarching. 


 MS. MUNN: Perhaps -- I guess what I'm actually 


suggesting here is that perhaps -- we have two 


items with respect to badging there now. I'm 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

wondering whether the overarching issue really 


and truly is a broader aspect of badging, which 


includes cohort badging and interpretation of 


results and handling when in the possession of 


the employee. Perhaps -- we'll -- we'll think 


some more about that. For the time being this 


is fine, just an additional thought that we 


might (unintelligible) later. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you for that comment. 


Any other comments on this? 


 (No responses) 


We'll consider this then to be kind of a 


working document as we go forward. We'll have 


the monthly updates and -- and some additional 


-- additions to the column there to clarify 


those items that have been identified. And 


again, we can -- we can always modify this as 


we go and make additional improvements. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Jim. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Thank you, 


Jim. 


 MS. MUNN: It's really helpful to have that 


formalized. Yes, thank you. 


WORKING GROUP UPDATES


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's move on then to our working 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

group updates, and I guess, Lew, we can go 


right down through the -- well, I'm getting an 


echo here. Do I sound like I'm in an echo 


chamb-- I'm hearing myself. 


 DR. WADE: No, I -- I feel the same for myself, 


but I'm not hearing it for you, Paul. Are you 


hearing it for me? 


 DR. ZIEMER: No. No, I just hear it for 


myself. Maybe (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. WADE: So then I guess we'll have to deal 


with that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we'll just proceed 


here. 


 DR. WADE: You want me to read the list of 


workgroups? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's just take them in order, see 


if they have a report and an update, status 


report on where things stand and any actions 


needed by the Board. 


 DR. WADE: I'm going to take them in -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) through the 


groups. 


 DR. WADE: -- in the order of the lists that I 


sent -- had sent out to you most recently. 


We'll start with the subcommittee on dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

reconstruction. Mark, I think we'll hear from 


you when we talk about the sixth or the seventh 


round of DRs. Is there anything else you would 


like to put forward? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I -- not really. Is 


that the -- that's the only thing I wanted to 


update on was the status of the selection for 


the seventh round. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. We have that as the next 


item. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'll save it for that. No other 


updates at this point. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Then we have the workgroup of 


the Nevada Test Site site profile, Robert 


Presley as chair. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can everybody hear me? This is 


Robert. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yep. 


 MS. MUNN: Yep. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I talked to Mark Rolfes this 


morning and we still do not have a date for our 


next meeting. Quite a few of the subjects that 


we identified that we needed to review on 


Technical Basis Documents were still waiting 


for information back from Oak Ridge Associated 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

Universities. We are still waiting for 


external environmental dose correction factors. 


I think that NIOSH is doing an evaluation on 


that. Gene Rollins is working on resuspension. 


SC&A -- we're waiting on something -- right now 


I don't remember what it was, but we're waiting 


on something from SC&A back to NIOSH or -- or 


CDC so that they can make their determination. 


And Mark feels like that it will probably be 


after our next meeting before we can possibly 


get together on this. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Robert. Any questions 


for that group? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, let's proceed. 


 DR. WADE: Workgroup on Savannah River Site 


site profile, Mike Gibson chair. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, Lew. We haven't had any 


other meetings, either, and there's still quite 


a few open items, but it's mainly I think 


because of more information needed and I think 


there's still a few items that NIOSH needs to 


work out some problems with DOE about and -- 


and then hopefully we can be close enough that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

at our next batch of meetings, say in 


Cincinnati, working group meetings or 


something, that maybe we can have another 


meeting and try to get closer to closure on 


this. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any questions for Mike? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld from 


NIOSH. I just want to -- maybe something for 


the Board to consider in terms of Savannah 


River. One of the issues that we're pursuing ­

- a piece of information we're pursuing with 


the Department of Energy is this event or 


incident database that has classified data 


intermingled in it, and so it will require a 


review down there by (unintelligible) who are 


cleared. And so it may be at some point, you 


know, prudent to identify -- we can probably 


identify a person or two; SC&A would, I'm sure; 


and the Board -- a person from the Board would 


want to go to participate in that -- you know, 


some sort of review of that data in that 


database. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Let's see, on your 


workgroup -- Mark, are you the only one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

cleared? 


 MR. GIBSON: Well, Lew, I'm also cleared. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I have clearance. 


 MR. GIBSON: And Brad Clawson does. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Brad, sure, right. Well, 


you've got some cleared people on your -- on 


your workgroup. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I certainly would be 


interested in that if we could arrange that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We can -- we can -- would it be 


appropriate then for us to work with those two 


Board members, Brad and Mark, along with SC&A 


and our own staff to try to arrive at a 


mutually-agreeable time or a date? 


 MR. GIBSON: Just copy me in, if you would. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Of course, of course. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay, yeah, that'd be great. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, good. Thank you. Proceed. 


 DR. WADE: Workgroup on Rocky Flats site 


profile and SEC petition. Mark, the chair. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we had a meeting on Monday 


the 9th and it was changed from a face-to-face 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

meeting to a conference call meeting, really 


just to update on the status. We have a lot of 


action items, as most people know, winding down 


-- the major action items, I think SC&A is 


delivering pieces of their final report as we 


speak. We've gotten a few in the last couple 


of days. I think they're -- they owe us a few 


more. 


 We've scheduled another meeting on January 26th 


to be a face-to-face meeting in Cincinnati, and 


that gives NIOSH a lit-- about a week or a 


little over a week to -- to look at these SC&A 


products. So we're under the crunch here to -- 


to try to wind down these final items and I -- 


I don't want to -- some of them are fairly 


large action items, so we've got a fair amount 


of work in front of us still, aiming for the -- 


the February meeting, though, to have -- to be 


in a good position to, you know, have good 


discussions on all these final action items. 


Lew, I don't know if you -- if this is the 


place to bring up the letter from -- 


 DR. WADE: Well, I think we have it on the -- 


we have it later on the agenda. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You outlined it separately, okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74

 DR. WADE: Yeah. Mark, just for completeness, 


your 1/26 face-to-face starting at 9:30? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But it may be appropriate, even -- 


we can discuss it later, but I think 


everybody's aware -- I think the letter was 


distributed -- we got a letter from the 


Congressional delegation from Colorado 


requesting that the Board not take action at 


its next meeting on the -- on the Rocky Flats 


petition, and I -- I simply wanted to ask you, 


Mark, do you -- aside from that request -- 


well, first of all, would that be helpful 


anyway? You -- you indicate you're pressing 


against these deadlines and I know you guys 


have --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- a pretty -- pretty big agenda 


that you have to come to closure on yet -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we have --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- aside from that letter, do you 


think you would have been ready anyway? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we have -- we have a couple 


of technically robust items left on the -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 -- 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75

 DR. ZIEMER: That was my --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- action --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- impression, too, and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: And on the --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I was wondering if we -- if it 


was realistic in any event to think of closing 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- February. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it was sort of depending on -- 


on, you know, how NIOSH responded to some of 


the final -- we haven't seen SC&A's product so 


I -- I couldn't really tell you, but I suspect 


they're -- at least based on the -- the phone 


discussion on a couple of the items, I -- we 


have the sense that there was, you know, not -- 


that NIOSH would have to look at these fairly 


thoroughly, especially item -- items like data 


completeness and the thorium dose 


reconstruction model definitely would deserve a 


fair amount of time for NIOSH to respond to 


SC&A's report. And then the other piece that I 


think might be pertinent to bring up is that 


this final product from SC&A, along with all 


the reports transmitted back and forth, a lot 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

of them have come out in the fair recent time, 


and -- and we're probably going to go right up 


to the wire with SC&A's final report, and I 


think it might behoove us to give the 


petitioner some time to have with these 


materials as well 'cause they might have some 


questions or comments or -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it -- it sounds -- it sounds 


like it would be very iffy in any event, aside 


from this request. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It might be, yes. It was going 


to be -- it was going to be close. We were 


trying -- we were certainly shooting for it, 


but --


 MS. MUNN: It's going to take a lot of midnight 


oil. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, what I think -- I think we 


had a feeling initially that the -- there -- 


that to some extent we were being pushed by the 


petitioners and the delegation to try to close 


this faster rather than -- than we might 


otherwise have been able to, but this -- this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

latest letter suggests that they are willing to 


-- in fact are encouraging us to delay it, in 


part to allow our new Board members to become 


involved in the process. But aside from that, 


I think to make sure that we have a chance to 


thoroughly review this information that's under 


-- under consideration. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I -- I have no problem 


with the -- the (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: But if we do delay it, that also 


has some impact perhaps on where we would meet 


because, for example, if we said well, we're 


not going to act on -- on Rocky until the 


spring meeting, then we may want to delay the ­

- the Denver -- delay meeting in Denver until 


that time, too. So there's a couple of 


implications that involve not -- not only the ­

- the vote itself, but where we -- when and 


where we meet. 


 DR. WADE: And this is Lew. At this point I 


believe I've got the option to meet whenever 


the Board says. I don't think we're committed 


to Denver to the point that we couldn't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

reschedule for May, and then seek another venue 


for February. And I guess when I talk to NIOSH 


they tell me they expect to present the Fernald 


SEC petition in the February, so that could 


take us to Cincinnati. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. Well, we can proceed with 


the reports here, but keep that in mind as 


background for possible action relative to the 


February meeting then. Okay? 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. Mark, anything else on 


Rocky Flats site profile/SEC? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, that -- that's it. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. The workgroup on Chapman 


Valve SEC, that's Dr. Poston. He's not with 


us. Is John Mauro on the call? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm still here. 


 DR. WADE: I know, John, you've had -- you've 


had discussions with Dr. Poston. Could you 


give us a sense... 


DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, Dr. Poston has had a 


chance to review our report. I don't know if 


the other members of the working group have -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: We have not. 


DR. MAURO: Okay -- and the plan was as soon as 


-- Dr. Poston has been committed to some other 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

matters where he has not yet set up a 


conference call or a face-to-face regarding 


Chapman. But I think there's general agreement 


that the issues are -- are -- are limited in a 


number of issues and that -- that as soon as we 


can convene a working group, we should be able 


to make progress quickly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know if I'm ready to say 


there's general agreement since we haven't met, 


but I -- I think we've -- you know, I -- I 


would hope -- I was hoping we'd be in a 


position to vote on this in February, but we 


haven't had any movement on a meeting, so we 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. WADE: Well, I'll engage with Dr. Poston 


and see what I can do, and am I correct in 


hearing that the other workgroup members have 


not seen the SC&A report at this point? 


 MR. CLAWSON: This is Brad. I haven't -- I 


have not seen anything, either. I've kind of 


been holding off -- I kind of feel like I'm 


kind of out here in the dark a little bit on 


this, too, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think the report was sent 


to all members of the workgroup, was it, John, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

or --


DR. MAURO: Yes, it was -- it went out to all 


members of the workgroup and NIOSH. I don't 


have the date, but it must have been about 


three weeks ago. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, it has been a while, so I 


might have -- I might have actually looked at 


it, but we haven't had a meeting so -- 


 DR. WADE: Would you re-send it, John, just to 


be sure it's fresh? 


DR. MAURO: Certainly, I'll take care of that. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's proceed. 


 DR. WADE: Now the workgroup on SEC issues, 


paren, including the 250-day issue and the 


preliminary review of 83.14 SEC petitions; Dr. 


Melius chair. Dr. Ziemer, you're a member. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, I think at our last 


meeting we reported on -- on what we had done. 


We've not had any meetings since then, since 


December, so there's nothing additional to 


report on that. We will be -- let's see -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Meeting next week. Right? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- meeting on --


DR. ROESSLER: We're meeting on the 17th in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

Cincinnati. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the 17th, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- so a week -- a week from now we 


will be meeting in Cincinnati and then 


hopefully have something more concrete to 


report at the next Board meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Is there a start time 


identified for that meeting? 


DR. ROESSLER: 10:00 o'clock. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, 10:00 o'clock on the -- 


 DR. WADE: 17th. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 17th. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And Dr. Wade, may I -- may I 


give you a little bit of an update -- 


 DR. WADE: Please. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- on my --


 DR. WADE: Please. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- communications with Dr. 


Melius? This is Arjun. I -- I have a paper on 


Ames, which was one of the three places where 


we were supposed to do case studies. I will be 


sending that out to the working group and -- 


and NIOSH today. John Mauro and Hans -- Hans 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

Behling prepared that and I've reviewed it and 


John Mauro has reviewed it. I hope to be 


sending out a couple of other pieces related to 


Nevada by -- by the end of the week. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, just -- on that issue, we are 


in receipt also of a letter from Laurence 


Fuortes at the University of Iowa that relates 


in part to the Ames issue and the 250-day 


issue. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: I believe that issue is in the hands 


of the workgroup and just wanted to be sure 


that we mention that we have that letter and it 


is with the workgroup. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Incidentally, while -- while we 


were talking here I was just checking my 


Chapman Valve files and I find that I do have 


the SC&A Chapman Valve report and it's dated 


December 6th. Is that the one, John, that 


you're talking about? John Mauro? 


 (No response) 


 DR. WADE: John, are you on mute? 


 (No response) 


John was also going to have to leave us, so 


yes, I believe that that's the one he was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

referring to. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I -- I -- I think it may 


have been distributed to all the Board members, 


not just the workgroup because -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think you're right, Paul. Is 


it called "Handouts to workgroups"? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- well, this is a working 


draft of SC&A's review of Chapman Valve SEC 


petition. 


DR. NETON: It should be about a 100-page 


report. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 109 pages. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- like I said, I may have it 


somewhere, but if you can resend it, I -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it's -- the report's dated 


December 6th, so it's obviously a fairly recent 


report. I thought it was distributed to all 


the Board members. 


DR. ROESSLER: I think it was. My list shows 


that it was distributed to (unintelligible) -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


DR. ROESSLER: -- yes, I think it was. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. CLAWSON: (Broken transmission) got it. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84

 MS. MUNN: I can't find where I filed it. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Well, John was going to resend it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, going to resend it, okay. 


Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Let's see, where are 


we at, we --


 DR. WADE: We're at workgroup to review SEC 


petitions that did not qualify, Dr. Lockey. 


 MS. MUNN: Before we leave the 250-day issue -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- Arjun said the magic words when 


he said he had some additional data on the 


Nevada site that was just about ready to go 


out. We've mentioned before the overlap that 


this 250-day issue has with the NTS group and 


if it would be possible for us to -- for the 


NTS group to be copied, as well, with that 


information, Arjun, it would really be helpful. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I will do that, Ms. Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you so much. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That'd be great. 


 DR. WADE: Before we leave that -- that long-


titled workgroup, that workgroup is also 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

looking at the preliminary review of 83.14 SEC 


petitions, so NIOSH, I assume that as you 


prepare to bring these forward, you would be in 


contact with that workgroup, particularly the 


chair, to provide them as early a view of those 


83.14s as possible. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, we -- this is Larry Elliott. 


Yes, we would. And Dr. Melius has asked that 


at the next workgroup meeting we will -- we 


have a discussion about the experience with our 


recent submittals of 83.14s to the Board at 


Naperville. So we'll pick up a couple of those 


as examples to talk through them. 


 DR. WADE: I also think that there are some 


lessons learned on the two petitions we just 


talked about today and how that goes to the 


preparation of the evaluation reports, and I 


think the workgroup will want to talk about 


that, as well. 


Okay. Next we have the workgroup on Hanford 


site profile chaired by Dr. Melius; Clawson, 


Ziemer, Poston. Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, that workgroup has not met 


yet. We had a telephone meeting just to get a 


-- which actually Jim reported on at our last 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

meeting -- to just -- to get updated on what 


was available, but other than that, we have not 


met yet. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Incidentally, I don't know if you 


skipped Jim Lockey's SEC -- 


 DR. WADE: Oh, I did. I read it and then I 


didn't --


 DR. ZIEMER: He actually gave us a report at 


the last meeting. I think that was kind of a 


closeout, wasn't it, Jim? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Jim Lockey. Jim Melius at that 


meeting had asked me to -- that one of the 


things he wanted to look at in addition was 


what happened when these petitions were 


referred to NIOSH for a appeal, and I guess 


I'll have to get with Jim Elliott to -- I'm 


sorry, Larry Elliott, to -- to see if there's 


examples of that process and how they can be 


made available to the workgroup. 


 DR. WADE: Right, that was an open issue. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, and Dr. 


Lockey, we will be forwarding to the workgroup 


the three petitions that have come out of the 


appeal panel so that you can evalu-- you can 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

look at how they were handled. 


 DR. LOCKEY: That'd be fine. I think we can do 


that by -- by just e-mailing that to us and 


then we can have a short con-- or a conference 


call and handle that and close this -- this 


workgroup out then. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we can probably do that by 


phone, especially given the small number we're 


dealing with. 


 DR. WADE: I'm sorry I skipped over that. But 


again we're back to Dr. Lockey, workgroup on 


conflict of interest policy for the Board, Dr. 


Lockey, as one we had tabled. 


 DR. LOCKEY: At the last Board meeting I had 


asked the Board's legal counsel to put together 


a workbook where the various ongoing conflict 


of interest statements would be indexed, 


including the example through the CDC -- the 


Immunology Committee that has a conflict of 


interest statement in place. I have not yet, 


as I am aware, received that. That was going 


to be distributed to all the workgroup members. 


Perhaps I need to -- Lew, should I get with you 


on that or --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88

 DR. WADE: That's fine. Liz, Emily, are you -- 


is that something on your list? 


 MS. HOWELL: Yes, on the list and I'm working 


on it now and hope to have something to Dr. 


Lockey within the next couple of weeks. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Thank you very much. And after --


after we get that, then I'll -- we'll schedule 


a -- I think people will take a week or so to 


review that, then we'll schedule a -- probably 


a face-to-face meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Very good. Workgroup on procedures 


review, Wanda Munn chair. 


 MS. MUNN: Our procedures review group has not 


met for quite some time, and we have now begun 


to put together -- we -- we've been provided by 


NIOSH with a more complete list of where we 


are, which has just come to us. We have not -- 


I have not called the group to see when a 


convenient date would be for us to review this 


new information -- the latest information, the 


most updated for what we have. 


 DR. WADE: And just for completeness, I think 


when we talk about the future SEC (sic) tasks 


update next, I think SEC's (sic) prepared to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

talk a bit about procedures review and some 


thoughts there, so Wanda, pay attention to 


that. It could define some work or -- 


 MS. MUNN: I certainly will, yes. 

 DR. WADE: -- for your workgroup. 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. At this juncture we will await 

further instruction with respect to what's 


going to happen with the SEC procedures group 


and we'll try to coordinate and go from there. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. And we'll stay with you 


to do workgroup on Blockson Chemical SEC. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, Blockson Chemical, as you are 


probably all aware, had the SEC petition and 


the site profile withdrawn by NIOSH as a result 


of our last meeting when we had several issues 


that were raised at that time. Our workgroup 


did have a very brief conference call on 


Tuesday the 9th, and we covered three topics 


that were fairly simple. 


We asked NIOSH to clarify whether the findings 


in the draft report were going to be covered by 


the new deliberations that they were 


undertaking with respect to the site profile. 


The answer to that generally is yes. 


We asked the working group members to identify 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

any additional comments and concerns that they 


might have. We did not have a significant 


number of those, but we had a brief discussion 


with respect to them. And -- as they were 


applicable to both the SEC and the SC&A report. 


And our next concern was what the reasonable 


schedule for next steps was going to be. Our 


information that we received that was valuable 


to us during that discussion was that there 


were going to be meetings in Joliet on the 24th 


and the 25th to interact with the Blockson 


people who remain in that area and who might 


have some better information with respect to 


where exactly in their process the new 


introduction of (unintelligible) was required 


for a contract with the government to be 


completed. That has created the question of 


where the additional waste stream began on the 


site. In view of the fact that that meeting is 


going to occur and in light of how productive 


those discussions have been both for SC&A and 


for members of the Board in the past, I'd like 


to request that we consider the possibility of 


having SC&A's expert on say chemical processes 


and as head of the working group I also would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

like to attend at least one or more of those 


meetings. In light of the fact I have to be in 


Cincinnati on the 26th for (unintelligible) the 


Rocky Flats working group, as well, I'm going 


to have to come across (unintelligible) and 


would like for the group to consider the 


possibility of having Phillip -- gosh, what's 


Phillip's name, from the SC&A group? 


DR. ROESSLER: Is it Chick Phillips? 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) contract 


(unintelligible). 


DR. ROESSLER: Charles Phillips? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. I don't think 


John is on the call. I -- I think Chick 


Phillips did work with -- with John on the 


Blockson review, yes. 


 MS. MUNN: And it's -- since there are going to 


be two meetings, both the 24th and 25th, it 


would be helpful I think if we considered the 


possibility of (unintelligible) an additional 


presence at the meeting. 


Right now we are expecting a report at the May 


meeting. Exactly how far we will be along that 


path depends upon how extensive the NIOSH re-do 


is of the existing (unintelligible) and I -- I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

certainly can't speak to that. Can any of our 


NIOSH team speak to that? Or do they wish to? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, this is Larry Elliott. 


Your first comment, you know, we would 


certainly welcome any Board member's 


participation in -- in this -- these two worker 


outreach meetings, as well as -- any 


representative who can tag along. And -- and 


to your last point, you know, it's a challenge 


that I have set for the OCAS staff and the ORAU 


team to pull together the re-evaluation and be 


able to present hopefully revised documents at 


the May meeting. I hope that's what we'll be 


able to do, but we want to make sure that we do 


a thorough job. We're committed to making sure 


that we address all of the dose that needs to 


be reconstructed at Blockson Chemical and 


documents only address the AEC dose. So now 


we're looking at what partial dose may be, so 


we have to wait and see how that shapes up for 


us. 


 MS. MUNN: This is not a large site nor a large 


claim, but it's a very interesting one and it 


has some unique twists I think, so it's going 


to be a bit of a challenge for all of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

concerned, as I see it. 


 DR. WADE: And Larry, again, the dates of the 


worker outreach meetings, please? 


 MS. MUNN: January 24 and 25, as I 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Those are in Joliet. Right? 


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: At the Joliet Municipal 


Building, 7:00 o'clock each day. 


 DR. WADE: 7:00 p.m. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Good. Thank you, Wanda. 


 DR. WADE: Last but not least, we have the 


workgroup on the Fernald site profile and SEC, 


Brad Clawson chair. 


 MR. CLAWSON: (Broken transmission) Well, Lew, 


this is Brad. At this point we have not had a 


meeting yet. When we -- I first got assigned 


this, NIOSH had not had an opportunity yet 


(unintelligible) review SC&A's comment 


(unintelligible) at that point right now. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Doctor, we might -- and Mr. 


Clawson, might I give an update on that? I am 


preparing the matrix, as directed by the Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

at the last meeting, in two parts; one part 


related to the SEC issues arising from the site 


profile review and also from the petition and 


the evaluation report, and a second matrix that 


would relate to non-SEC issues from the site 


profile review. I hope that resolves -- this 


is a transition thing for -- for me to be 


(unintelligible) of this from transitioning 


from the site profile to the SEC. I will hand 


that off to Hans Behling in the next 10, 15 


days I hope. And Mr. Clawson, we'll send you a 


first draft of this also at that time and 


circulate it to the working group, but it 


should be in the next two weeks. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Appreciate that, Arjun. Now we 


did get some e-mail conversation back and 


forth, and you will not be the lead on it. 


It'll be Hans that'll be the lead. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: For -- for the SEC -- for the 


SEC petition review, I will not be the lead on 


it and I'm just handing off from the site 


profile review process but preparing this 


matrix. I will be working along with Hans as a 


site expert, so I'll be -- I'll be along for 


the ride. I'll be -- I'll be working on it, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

but I will not be the lead on it. 


 MR. CLAWSON: And -- and Larry, my 


understanding was that Mark Rolfes is the lead 


on this from your e-mail that you sent me for 


NIOSH. Is that correct? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, Mark Rolfes, that's correct. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, Dr. Ziemer, that runs the list 


of active workgroups that I have. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Good. Thank you very much. Any ­

- any final questions from Board members on the 


workgroup updates? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is there any way that Lew can 


send out another list of the people that are on 


the workgroups, along with the contact from 


SC&A and the contact -- NIOSH -- is there any 


way we can get an update on that? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, I'll take that as a task and 


I'll be contacting SC&A and NIOSH later today 


or tomorrow, and hopefully have that in your 


mailbox by tomorrow. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, Lew. That would 


really help. 


FUTURE TASKS FOR SC&A
 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay. Now, let's see, 


the next item on the agenda, future tasks for 


SC&A. We have seventh round of dose 


reconstruction reviews, and then we have site 


profile reviews. 


 DR. WADE: I would like to add to that, Paul, 


the Task III question that's arisen recently, 


and if we could put that on the list I think it 


would -- would serve us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Got that as a third item 


then. 


 DR. WADE: On the seventh round for DRs -- I 


mean it was our desire to try and name -- or -- 


or identify particular cases that would 


represent that seventh round, and the Board did 


some preliminary work to that end when it was 


last together. But again, when the material 


was assembled, it appeared that maybe we 


weren't as far along as we thought we were. 


And I don't know if Stu or Mark want to address 


that issue. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu, I can comment on 


that. Last time the Board selected I believe 


32 claims to gather additional information 


beyond what's available on our traditional 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

selection matrix. And that additional 


information had to do with what dose 


reconstruction techniques were used for both 


internal dosimetry and external dosimetry, job 


title for the worker and the building location 


-- what we (unintelligible) about that. 


And when we compiled that for these 32 cases, 


we found that, as I recall, 19 of the 32 -- the 


internal dosimetry technique was a 


overestimating approach -- was the 


(unintelligible) overestimating approach, which 


has been reviewed in quite a number of dose 


reconstructions already. So based on that, I 


thought maybe we -- if we (unintelligible) 


that, certainly (unintelligible) that we might 


be able to come up with more -- more than 13 


dose reconstructions that would yield maybe a 


more fruitful review. It might take 


(unintelligible) research on that, maybe go 


back and gather that similar additional 


information on another subset of the 300 and 


some that were presented in the last 


(unintelligible) matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and I guess to that end, 


Stu and I talked -- maybe a week ago, Stu, I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

guess? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Something like that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I -- I -- I took a -- a 


little liberty here, but I -- I selected 30 


additional cases for Stu to then compile more 


information, and then I think what we'll have 


is like that list of 62 at the next 


subcommittee meeting, is my anticipation, that 


-- that we have the 62 cases in front of -- in 


front of us, and then from that we'll get our 


20 final cases. I think at le-- we should -- 


hopefully -- I -- I think you ended up with -- 


I forget the numbers you just said there, Stu, 


from the first set of 32. It looked like a 


bunch of them were OTIB-2, though -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so I -- I selected 30 


additional -- the reason I didn't -- I -- I 


would have done it with the full subcommittee, 


but I -- I didn't want to slow up SC&A's 


progress and the whole Board's progress, and I 


thought if we wait till February to select 


another batch and give them back to NIOSH to 


give us more information, then we have to wait 


for the next meeting and do more on it, I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

thought that was kind of backing up our work a 


little bit, so I --


 DR. WADE: Most appropriate. Most appropriate 


what you did. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Mark, are you imagining that the 


subcommittee would meet the morning of the 


first day of the February Board meeting? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I was hoping, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: At that point, Stu -- or Mark, 


you'd be able to come up you think with the 


final list then? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think so, yeah, 'cause we'll 


have (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then the Board could approve that 


at that point. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the -- the subcommittee can 


go through the entire list of 62 and give a -- 


you know, a priority list back to the full 


Board at that meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Did you -- did you get the 


subcommittee members a copy of that last 


selection group that you -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I just sent it out this morning 


to (unintelligible) --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I'll forward it to 


everyone. I just have the selection numbers -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Make sure the subcommittee has 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I will. I will. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: So we're looking at a subcommittee 


meeting at 9:00 a.m. on February 7th. Good. 


Kathy Behling, I assume you're on the line, you 


provided a work product to all of us that 


possibly would be useful to the subcommittee or 


the Board. Could -- could you just walk us 


through that? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. What I tried to do is look 


at -- last 120 cases and compared those 120 


cases to the initial selection criteria that 


was established by the Board. Now I have not 


included all of the new types of selection 


criteria that Mark talked about, but I have 


tried to put together -- and I worked in -- 


along with Stu Hinnefeld. He provided me with 


his statistics, al-- also. And I just tried to 


lay out -- you all of the facilities that we 


have already -- and made a compari-- to the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

available number of facilities -- 2.5 percent 


of the available number from each of the 


various facilities -- might just -- in my first 


slide. I also looked at the POC category, at 


decade of first employment, duration -- 


employment and also risk models or cancers that 


we've already selected. In each case, if you 


look at -- slide, I tried to, under the 


heading, put some information regarding what 


your initial selection -- would 


(unintelligible) to -- to do. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. I think that's most 


helpful. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Did you send this -- you sent this 


to all the Board members, didn't you, Kathy? 


think --


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I did. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) distribution. 


I think it's very helpful information. 


 MS. BEHLING: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: And it was dated January 9th. At 


least that's the date I received it, January 


9th. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Very helpful. Thank you, Kathy. 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102

 MS. BEHLING: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: So then our individual DRs, we have 


a -- a crisp plan of action. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to request one other 


thing of this subcommittee. You know, we had 


the initial report that went in to the 


Secretary on the first 20 cases. The second 


and third 20, that is -- yeah, the next 40 -- 


that -- that report is basically completed. 


There were some number differences between 


SC&A's list and -- and ours, and Mark and I and 


Kathy are working (unintelligible) be ready. 


SC&A also prepared a summary report covering 


the first 60 -- first 60 cases. I -- I think 


it was distributed fairly recently, Kathy, as I 


recall -- maybe in December -- with kind of a 


summary of everything that's covered in the 


first 60 cases. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, we did prepare that. 


However one of the -- is that it was -- earlier 


than that, maybe October or November. If 


anyone needs another copy of it -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: My -- my point is, I'm wondering ­

- I don't know if the -- the subcommittee may 


want to take a specific look at that and see 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

whether you think it would be also useful to 


submit that -- the 60-case summary -- to the 


Secretary in some form. I simply ask that 


question and maybe you can consider that, Mark, 


as you do -- do your tasks at the next meeting, 


if you have a chance to take a look at that 


SC&A report and determine whether that would, 


in some form, be useful to send on as kind of a 


summary of -- of the first 60 cases. Okay? 


 DR. WADE: So that takes us to the second item 


on the list, which is site profile -- just to 


give you a status of the tasking of your -- of 


your contractor. For this fiscal year we had 


said we would give SC&A five new site profiles 


to review, in addition to the review of the 


Savannah River Site site profile. That made 


the sixth. They were given the go-ahead at 


this point on Lawrence Livermore National Lab, 


on K-25 and on Pantex, so there are two 


unfilled slots at the moment. You voted that 


those slots would likely be filled by 


Portsmouth and Argonne National Lab West. We 


have not given SC&A the go-ahead on Portsmouth 


or Argonne National Laboratory West. You don't 


have to do it now. I -- I would think we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

shouldn't do it any later than February, 


though, when we meet. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I think we sort of -- 


initially we said well, we'll -- we actually 


had prioritized seven. We said we would assign 


the first three, wait till later and see if 


there were any priority changes, and then do 


the next two or three. And Lew is suggesting 


that we go ahead at least with the next two so 


that they have sort of oncoming work known to 


them in advance. 


 DR. WADE: If we do Portsmouth and Argonne 


National Laboratory West, then we will have 


completed the complement for this fiscal year. 


Now you'll have five new plus Savannah River, 


and contractually we were speaking of six. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And just for information -- put 


this in context -- on our priority list I 


remember six was Sandia Albuquerque, priority 


seven was -- I have Clarksville -- 


 DR. WADE: Let me look at my list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I don't even remember what 


Clarksville was, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: I don't either. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I do. This is Bob Presley -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105

 DR. WADE: Clarksville Medina. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- Clarksville Medina, that is 


one of the earliest assembly points on there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Anyway, those -- those were 


the seven that we prioritized as -- well, 


actually we also had Atomics and National 


Technology Center sort of in there as a 


possible seven, as well, but anyway, the 


question is, did you want to go ahead with four 


and five and are -- is everybody still 


comfortable with Portsmouth and Argonne West? 


 MS. MUNN: There hasn't been any new 


information or anything changed since our last 


deliberations, has there? I -- I thought -- I 


had the impression that most of the Board was 


fairly accepting of the two that we had 


prioritized in that order. I didn't hear 


anyone objecting to either Portsmouth or 


Argonne West. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not aware of any major 


changes, either, that would cause us to change, 


but --


 MS. MUNN: But there have not been any change-- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- opportunity for people if they 


do want to change that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106

 MS. MUNN: If there's not been any change, I'm 


certainly more than -- than glad to move that 


we --


 DR. ZIEMER: We need a formal motion if we wish 


to task the contractor to proceed on these. 


 MR. GIBSON: Excuse me -- Paul, could I ask a 


question first? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You bet. 


 MR. GIBSON: Back on the individual dose 


reconstruction reviews, I think we were going 


to do some blind dose reconstruction reviews, 


if memory serves me correct, and I don't think 


we've done any of those yet. Is that correct? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I believe that's correct. Mark, 


can you --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that -- that's correct, 


Mike. I -- actually I was going to bring that 


up in the subcommittee meeting in -- wherever 


we have the next Board meeting, but I think we 


do need to -- to go back to our original scope 


as looking at the advanced reviews and -- and 


some blind reviews that were never done. So we 


may want to select some of these cases for a 


blind review, but we should discuss that at the 


subcommittee. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107

 MR. GIBSON: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- our position, yeah. 


 MR. GIBSON: Did we -- refresh my memory, if 


you will. Did we lay out a method-- 


methodology about how that'll be done, or we 


still need to do that, also? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we may need to go -- all 


refresh our memories on that and go back to the 


original scope. I don't think we set out a 


methodology on that, though. 


 MS. MUNN: It's been a while. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, remember that on the blind 


review we have to select it in such a way that 


the contractor doesn't know in advance what the 


outcome was. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so these cases may not be 


eligible for it, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- well, or we have to select 


it in such a way that that information is not 


disclosed. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) listing's out 


there, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, I (unintelligible) -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108

 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- what I'm saying, but I think 


the subcommittee should look at how we can 


actually go about even making that selection in 


a way that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that assures that we have a 


true blind review, but this -- but I think -- a 


good -- good point to raise that, Mike, and ask 


the subcommittee to pursue that issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I'll certainly put it on 


the agenda for the subcommittee, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to call, though, for a 


motion on the site profile reviews. Does 


anyone wish to make a motion? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Bob Presley, I'll make a motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What are you moving? Are -- are 


you moving that we confirm Portsmouth and 


Argonne West as the next two site profile 


reviews to task to our contractor? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 


 MS. MUNN: I second -- Wanda. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is there any discussion? 


 (No responses) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

Appears to be no discussion. Board members, we 


will vote by roll call. If you're in favor of 


the motion, say aye. If you're opposed, say 


no. If you're abstaining, so state. Lew, will 


you call the roll, please? 


 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn? 


 MS. MUNN: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: James Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: (No response) 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson, are you on or muted? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Can you hear me now? 


 DR. WADE: I can, yes. What's your vote, Brad? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Poston is not on the call. Mike 


Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Jim Melius? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

(No response) 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Ziemer, do you wish -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: -- to vote? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I'll vote aye. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So we have eight ayes, no 


no’s, no abstentions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries. Thank you very 


much. The -- oh, okay, now Task III issues. 


You want to kick that off, Lew? 


 DR. WADE: Yeah. Again, John Mauro has sent e-


mails to us very recently that sort of speak to 


the status of where they are and I guess my 


very brief telling of it is that we've given 


them the go-ahead on 24 procedures to review of 


a budgeted total of 30 that's available. I 


think John is saying in his note that there are 


seven procedures that are reviews carrying on 


from last year and he would intend to complete 


them. I think John is also saying that there 


are eight procedures that he's identified that 


are under at least a partial review from some 


other Board review function -- a site profile 


review or an SEC review or something of that 


type. I think John is saying that they would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

like to expand those to full reviews. And then 


he's still saying that within the budget he 


thinks he can fit an additional six reviews, 


and as early as this morning sent out a list of 


those six reviews. 


So Kathy, can you correct the mistakes I made 


and then take us forward in this? 


 MS. BEHLING: No, everything you said is 


correct, Dr. Wade. We are recommending or 


suggesting that -- I believe you all -- a memo 


that -- three tables, and Table 1 includes the 


procedures that have been selected at the 


various Board meetings and ones that we had 


previously reviewed and will include in this 


group. There is also in Table 2 and 3 


asterisked documents that we would like to get 


approval to formally review. We are in some 


capacity reviewing these, either under Task I, 


the site profile, or the SEC petitions. 


In addition, I -- morning looked at Table -- 


and Table 3 and attempted to select six 


procedures that we feel we do have the budget 


to include with this group. It is a little bit 


difficult to select procedures, just because a 


lot of -- are administrative in nature. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

However, let me just suggest six, maybe seven, 


procedures here that you may want to consider. 


From -- 2 there's ORAU -- zero -- three six, 


and that's the internal -- coworker data for -- 


has got -- plan and I guess that's appropriate 


now in light of the motion that was carried. 


Also on -- in Table 2 is ORAU OTIB-0040, which 


is the external coworker dosimetry data. A 


little further down on Table 2 is ORAU PROC -- 


zero (unintelligible) four, which is Special 


Exposure Cohort procedure. And I believe, 


Arjun, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, we 


may have looked at this. I don't believe it's 


been formally reviewed. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: My attention was a little 


distracted. Can you repeat that? 


 MS. MUNN: I thought we (unintelligible). 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Kathy, my attention was a 


little distracted. Can you --


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- (unintelligible). 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I -- to the Board that -- 


were select -- an additional -- or making some 


recommendations as to some additional 


procedures that the Board may want to assign 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

us, and one of those that was put on this list 


and there's also -- let me introduce Steve 


Marksy*, who I believe is on this phone call, 


who is an SC&A employee who helped put this 


table together. One of -- procedures that was 


included was ORAU PROC (unintelligible) four 


four, which is the Special Exposure Cohort 


procedure. Now -- a little unsure whether this 


was formally reviewed. I know we did look at 


it when you started the SEC -- but I don't know 


if it was actually ever written up in a formal 


document. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't believe it has been. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: If it has been, I haven't been 


involved with it. 


 MS. BEHLING: I get -- that -- thought. 


 MS. MUNN: Mark, did we discuss PROC-44 at some 


point in the subcommittee? 


 MR. GRIFFON: It wasn't in our -- it wasn't in 


that -- we didn't review it in there, no, but 


we did review it -- I think we discussed it in 


-- in the SEC procedures discussion but I don't 


recall reviewing it in (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: Well, we had a lot of discussion 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

about it. I guess that's why it sticks in my 


memory. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Kathy. Go on. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Also ORAU PROC -- eight 


six. I'm not -- sure about -- but it did seem 


to be that it could be of some interest. It's 


case (unintelligible) complex internal 


(unintelligible) claims, and again, it may be 


somewhat -- but I thought it might be 


beneficial -- us to review it for the dose 


reconstruction process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What was that number again, 


PROC... 


 MS. BEHLING: PROC-0086. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 86, okay, uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: And Kathy, you're sounding a little 


hollow to me, what -- what was the title of 


that document? 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, the title was Case 


Preparation, Complex Internal Dosimetry Claims. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: Did you hear me better? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry. If we move on to 


Table 3, and I hope everyone has these tables 


in front of them, there were also two 


procedures that I've selected from that which 


you may want to consider. One is OCAS P 


(unintelligible) P zero zero (unintelligible), 


and that's evaluation of the change in target 


organs for dose reconstruction involving 


lymphoma. I'm not -- I did look at this 


briefly. I'm not excessively familiar with 


these program evaluation plans, I don't know 


how appropriate it would be for us to review 


them, but the title sounded like it would be 


worthwhile. 


And then lastly is OCAS TIB-0012. That title 


is selection for internal and external 


dosimetry target organs of lymphatic and 


hemopoietic cancers. Now I don't want to add 


confusion to this issue, but one of the 


documents that's not on here, and I know we 


discussed this before, and that is ORAU PROC0006, which is the external dose reconstruction 


procedure. I believe there's been a Rev. 1 


that's a complete rewrite, and I know that as a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

follow-up to previous -- that we've re-- we've 


re-- yeah, we've reviewed this before, but in 


order to be sure that this doesn't fall through 


the crack, I was also hoping that we might be 


able to include that into this set of procedure 


reviews. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Kathy. And Wanda, I 


guess this is fodder for your workgroup to 


consider and decide how to proceed. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, a lot of fodder. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy, I just had a question. 


How -- how does -- from a -- I guess from a 


work or a budget standpoint that in the initial 


procedures review, your last comment brought 


back memories. I think one of our -- many of 


the actions was that NIOSH has rewritten or 


redrafted or -- or is such-and-such a procedure 


took precedence and -- and therefore SC&A will 


review it, just all -- all tho-- all those 


follow-up reviews or closeout on actions, are 


they included in your work scope, are they 


covered by your available funds, that sort of 


thing? 


 MS. BEHLING: I believe they are covered by the 


available funds. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: However, I want -- sure -- as I 


mentioned, that they do get formally included ­

- one of these -- supplemental procedure 


reviews. 


 DR. ZIEMER: All right. Kathy, this is Ziemer. 


On -- on this last one, PROC 0006, what -- is 


that Rev. 1? 


 MS. BEHLING: Rev. 1. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now I notice -- well, I think we 


already approved that in the December meeting. 


Is this the one on external dose 


reconstruction? 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, you're correct. I'm sorry, 


I missed that this morning. Never mind. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so that was already on our 


list. 


 MS. MUNN: That was on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay, we can mark that out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now the question is now do we want 


to go ahead and approve these six or some other 


ones now, or do you -- or would you rather have 


the workgroup review this recommendation first 


and then come to the Board meeting with a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

specific recommendation at the next meeting? 


 DR. WADE: From a contract point of view -- 


this is Lew -- I don't think it's critical that 


we do it today. I would like to see it done in 


February, but --


 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't we ask then -- ask the 


workgroup to review this recommendation from 


Kathy and consider any other related issues. 


They may be able to even do this by phone, 


Wanda, but --


 MS. MUNN: I think so. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it would be appropriate to have 


the workgroup take a look at this and then come 


back with a formal recommendation. 


 MS. MUNN: My preference would be that SC&A 


give us this recommendation and -- in written 


format by e-mail -- and then that we coordinate 


a conference call for the group to take a look, 


once they've taken a look at the procedures and 


the recommendation, and just -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then have a chance to consider any 


others that we might -- 


 MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- think are --


 MS. MUNN: We'll have a conference call to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

discuss that and hopefully have a 


recommendation for February. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if that's agreeable and 


there's no -- no issue with the contracting 


officer time-wise, then we can proceed on that 


basis. 


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. I'd like to ask 


that all Board members get the SC&A 


recommendations in writing because I think I'd 


like to give some input to the workgroup. 


 MS. MUNN: Absolutely. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would be excellent. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Kathy, for your last-


minute work. I appreciate it. 


 MS. BEHLING: You're welcome, and I will send 


out an e-mail to the entire Board. 


 DR. WADE: For completeness sake, could you put 


your e-mail just on top of John's previous 


analysis so everyone has the complete package 


then and the -- the tables that are referred 


to? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I will. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I agree with -- I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

agree with Wanda on that, that I -- we can talk 


about it on the workgroup. I was -- I was 


wondering -- I'm looking for these tables that 


Kathy was referencing. I'm sure I have them 


somewhere. But do the tables, Kathy, include ­

- 'cause this was one of my questions before -- 


do the tables include procedures that are not 


completed yet? There seem to be gaps in the 


numbers. I had talked to Stu about this and he 


said some of them were assigned and never used 


and some of them were like in draft form and 


not actually approved yet and I was wondering 


if there were important ones that fell in those 


gaps that we might want to save some money to 


review. 


 MS. BEHLING: I believe that the only 


procedures that are on our list are ones that 


have been published, not that are in draft form 


at this point. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is Stu on the call still or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'm here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do you remember -- I mean I know 


-- I think I brought this up with you or -- in 


the Chicago meeting, maybe, I can't remember 


where, but my question of -- I think -- you -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

you told me that, you know, in some cases -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe I sent the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: You did? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe I sent the list of 


all the assigned numbers and the topics -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, you did. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- with that number. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we did -- we got that, too. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I seem to recall, and you 


probably did -- I'll -- I'll look for them, but 


I think we should reference that, too, to... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, make -- and the subcommittee 


needs to make sure they have that on there, as 


well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That may be something that -- 


that's due out soon that we want to just -- 


instead of picking ones that are -- well, we're 


not sure we're interested in this that much, 


there might be some that are coming out 


(unintelligible)--


 DR. WADE: Kathy, do you have Stu's matrix? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I do, I have it in front of 


me and in fact it's dated 12/28/2006. 


 DR. WADE: Could you just make a nice bundle 


and put it all together and -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122

 MS. BEHLING: I will do that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Thanks. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

 MS. MUNN: That would be helpful to have it all 


in one spot. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, that's a good 


recommendation. 


 MS. MUNN: I feel like it's out in about three 


different places -- or four. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, it's actually a good 


recommendation to look ahead and see what might 


be coming out and what might be important for 


us to look at. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you, Kathy. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, very good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry? 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, go ahead, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can I ask Kathy to send me 


another copy of that document that she sent out 


on the 9th? My e-mail address has changed and 


I sent you the new e-mail. I can't find that 


one anywhere on my -- on my computer. 


 MS. BEHLING: I will -- I will send you -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

resend everything. Just if there's anything at 


all that you didn't get, please let me know and 


I'll try to forward those over to you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Kathy, this is Lew. If -- you know, 


you sent that list of the six or so that you 


would recommend, and if you wanted to 


reconsider that list based upon Stu's matrix -- 


I don't know if you've done that or not -- as 


much thought as you can provide to the working 


group the better for them to consider. 


 MS. BEHLING: Very good, I will do that. Thank 


you. 


 MS. MUNN: Most helpful. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's proceed then. We have 


several items to deal with during our work 


period here. One is the -- the request from 


the Colorado delegation on postponing action on 


the Rocky Flats SEC. Another is, let's see, 


response to Congresswoman Slaughter relating to 


Linde Ceramics, and that's the material that I 


sent out earlier in the week that you should 


have received. And let's see -- and then we 


have -- we have to take formal action on the 


SEC petitions that we discussed earlier. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124

 DR. WADE: Right, and I think the response to 


this Slaughter letter, Paul, brings us at least 


to break ground on the issue of the SEC-


reviewed site profiles that are not under 


active Board consideration. 


LETTER FROM CONGRESS


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Maybe we should go ahead 


and we'll start with the Slaughter letter. A 


copy of that was distributed I think by LaShawn 


and you should have that. And I drafted a 


response to I think the key thing here is -- 


and recall that my instructions from the Board 


are not to respond until Board has input on 


these kinds of issues, so I have the suggested 


letter where I have pointed out what has been 


done, that SC&A has -- that they've done 15 


site profiles, Linde is one of those that we 


have actually closed out; two, they have five 


more in process and we have eight that we've 


not done anything with and one of those is 


Linde, and what I'm suggesting here is that we 


commit to getting the Linde process underway. 


That is, we ask NIOSH to begin the -- the 


comment resolution process based on the 


findings of SC&A and that we would commit to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

setting up a workgroup at our next meeting that 


would then follow up and -- and proceed on the 


Linde process. 


What I'd like to ask is -- is that you look at 


my draft letter to Louise Slaughter and make 


suggestions on either amendments or 


improvements, changes, or if you think we 


should do something different. I -- I do feel 


like we need to commit to some action and 


actually not only Linde, but the others that -- 


 For your information, just to let you know what 


site profiles have been completed but for which 


we have taken no action and no comment 


resolution process is really underway. INEL is 


one, Los Alamos is another, X-10 Oak Ridge, 


Mound, Fernald, Paducah, Linde and Pinellas. 


So we have quite -- quite a group of -- sort of 


a backlog. Now granted, most of those were -- 


were completed within the last six months, and 


some much later than -- from July to December, 


some of them as recent as December. But some 


are less, we have kind of a backlog for which 


we have not -- not gotten into the comment 


resolution processes. 


 DR. WADE: Just for the record, Paul, Fernald 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

we do have a workgroup looking at 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: We do have a working group, right. 


 DR. WADE: -- but not -- not (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: That one's just barely underway. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So -- and -- and I'm not -- I 


haven't put all that detail in the letter, but 


just pointing out to her that, you know, Linde 


is not a special case, it's one of many. But 


we need to -- we need to proceed. 


 DR. WADE: Also to -- for the record to be 


complete, Y-12 is a unique case in that we 


started with the subcommittee looking at Y-12 


site profile. They sort of morphed into issues 


related to the SEC petition. That's wrapped 


up. But there is still hanging the issue of 


non-SEC matrix items related to Y-12. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and -- and when I say that 


we've closed two of these, I'm mainly referring 


to Bethlehem Steel and Mallinckrodt. We did 


close the SEC part of Y-12, but the site 


profile is not closed. 


 DR. WADE: And right now it's not tasked to 


anyone because --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127

 DR. ZIEMER: It's not tasked. 


 DR. WADE: -- we -- we recast the subcommittee. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Paul, I don't think that you have 


missed anything that needed to be said or 


actually could be said in response to the 


Slaughter letter. Your response seems fine to 


me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I -- I need formal action so 


if you'd like to make a motion to approve this 


letter, we can take action or -- 


 MS. MUNN: I would like to make a motion that 


we accept Dr. Ziemer's letter as provided for 


us in the draft of 1/11 for his response to the 


Slaughter letter relative to (unintelligible). 


DR. ROESSLER: This is Gen. I'd second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now before we take action, let me 


point out to you that in doing so, in essence 


we are also requesting that NIOSH proceed on 


Linde. We give this perhaps a kind of priority 


to -- to -- in here we say "as they're able" -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- or what do we say? 


 MS. MUNN: Well, you said as soon as feasible. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Soon as feasible --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128

 MS. MUNN: Yes, I -- that --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) provide the -- 


really get the resolution process underway. 


 MS. MUNN: That's reasonable. I certainly 


don't have any personal feel as to how much 


NIOSH has already --


 DR. ZIEMER: We have -- we have not mandated a 


timetable here, but it -- it's simply to let 


NIOSH know that we want to proceed. 


DR. LOCKEY: Paul --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. LOCKEY: -- Jim Lockey, you'll check it for 

typos. Right? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, give me some if you have 


them right now. I'll --


 DR. LOCKEY: Well, the -- the middle paragraph, 


fifth sentence down, "when the (unintelligible) 


review have come to us." 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which sentence is this? 


 DR. LOCKEY: First sen-- paragraph, fifth 


sentence down, starts with "Reviews". 


 MS. MUNN: Some of these eight reviews -- 


DR. ROESSLER: Oh, yes, --


 DR. ZIEMER: Seven of these eight have come -- 


 DR. LOCKEY: Have come to us. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129

 MS. MUNN: Have come to us. There's an E on -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, come to -- oh, yeah, come to ­

- come to the Board, really. 


 DR. LOCKEY: And then the last sentence, I -- I 


would just maybe revise the wording a little, 


but "focus on the rather large number of SEC 


petitions submitted to us over the past year." 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, have been submitted? 


 MS. MUNN: Well, submitted rather than "have 


come to." 

 DR. LOCKEY: Yeah, just "petitions submitted to 

us." 

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, they've been -- they are 

never submitted to us, that have -- just -- how 


about "that have been submitted"? 


 MS. MUNN: Submitted, period. 


 DR. LOCKEY: That's fine. 


 MS. MUNN: Or over the past year. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Take that as a friendly amendment, 


have been submitted. 


Okay, any -- any other changes or 


recommendations? 


 (No responses) 


Then let me call for a vote. We'll take a roll 


call vote again, Lew. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130

 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn? 

 MS. MUNN: Aye. 

 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: James Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Jim Melius? 


 (No response) 


 Jim Melius? 


 (No response) 


 Dr. Poston? 


 (No response) 


 Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So again eight ayes -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'll proceed and get this out 


right away then. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

Okay, now the matter of Rocky Flats. 


 DR. WADE: Well, be-- could I just ask that at 


least we tee up the issue of -- we have all of 


these other work-- all of these other SE-- 


excuse me, site profiles -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- not acted upon. I think we --


it's not -- I don't know of a solution to it, 


but I think at least in February we need to put 


our shoulder to it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and maybe what we can do -- 


and I -- I made myself up a table to kind of 


track these and I can make a copy of that 


available. It lists which ones have been 


completed and when and -- and where we are on 


closing out the comments. We -- at a minimum 


we're going to have to prioritize the next 


batch here. 


 DR. WADE: So I'll put that on the agenda for 


February. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: And certainly pleased to hear that 


you've put that together, Paul. I've been 


wondering how to keep track of these things 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

personally, so thank you for putting that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, and -- and keep in mind, in 


addition to the -- the eight that we -- are 


really not underway, we've got six more coming 


down the pike. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm well aware of that -- very. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So you know, the workload gets -- 


it keeps increasing. 


 MS. MUNN: It really does. 


ROCKY FLATS SEC


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, very good. Looks 


like we have now --


 DR. WADE: Rocky Flats letter. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Rocky Flats. What's your 


pleasure, Board members, on the Rocky Flats 


issue? 


 MS. ALBERG: Lew? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MS. ALBERG: This is Jeanette Alberg -- can -- 


that I had with -- representative for -- 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so --


 MS. MUNN: I didn't understand that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's kind of breaking up, but go 


ahead. 


 MS. ALBERG: My name is Jeanette Alberg. I'm 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

with -- office. I was -- in the call today for 


-- I had with the petition representative this 


morning. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MS. ALBERG: And -- I wanted -- they were okay 


with the delay -- Board -- that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The petitioners are? 


 MS. ALBERG: (Broken transmission) Yes. Yeah, 


and they said they were agreeable if -- and the 


workgroup -- with -- provide additional time to 


review the documents. And then the -- caveat 


they had was that -- was agreeable to amending 


its schedule to make sure that -- was a Board 


meeting in Denver when the Rocky Flats petition 


was -- on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, very good. Thank you for 


those comments. That's helpful. 


 MS. ALBERG: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, what is your 


pleasure? Do you want to formally take action 


in this? If so -- well, let me -- I'm -- I'm 


trying to see whether we need a repl-- actually 


I don't know that we necessarily have to reply 


to the letter because they can be made aware of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

the action. Right, Stu? 


 DR. WADE: I think that's correct, Paul. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, do you want to 


recommend that we formally agree to delay 


action, or do you just want to wait and see 


what -- what the workgroup comes up with? 


There -- there is the issue, though, that if 


we're not ready in February and we end up 


meeting in Denver, then we -- it's a bit of a 


dilemma because certainly the Rocky Fork -- 


Rocky Flats group would like us to be in Denver 


at the time that the action is to be taken. 


 DR. WADE: And then given the reality of the 


hotel arrangements, you know, I would rather 


see us make a decision today. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I -- I feel 


like we've got to go ahead and let -- notify 


them that we will put it off. Then at light --


we've already talked about moving the meeting 


date -- or not the meeting date, but meeting -- 


the location, it would be bad if we did decide 


to have the meeting in Denver and then we all 


couldn't get out there to vote on it or 


something like that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I -- I agree with Bob. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

I think the -- you know, I think I made sort of 


the case before, but you know, given that we're 


going to get a lot of large work products and 


comp-- complex work products toward the very 


end of this process, and we may still have some 


outstanding issues come February, I think it 


makes sense to probably -- you know, especially 


since the petitioners do not -- they actually 


are recommending that we do that, let -- let's 


put that off and then make sure that we get all 


work products to them in a timely fashion, give 


them plenty of time to review it prior to the 


May meeting, be in a better position to... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Mark, or somebody, then wish 


to make a motion that we formally delay -- 


agree to delay action on the Rocky Flats 


petition until our May meeting? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, you want to go ahead and do 

that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, if -- if we -- do we need a 

motion to do that or -- I guess -- yeah, I'll 


make a motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think we need -- need that 


formal action --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136

 DR. ZIEMER: -- so we get the -- make sure we 


have the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- sense of the Board on this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I make a motion that we delay 


final deliberations on the SEC -- the Rocky 


Flats SEC until the May Advisory Board meeting, 


which --


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- may be held in Denver. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I'll go 


ahead and second that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any discussion? 


 MS. MUNN: I think it would be wise for us to 


actually respond to that letter in such a way 


that it is clear from the Board's perspective 


that the issues involved are of sufficient 


magnitude and of sufficient scope that, 


although all parties involved are moving as 


quickly as possible on this, the degree of 


completeness that is necessary to make a final 


decision simply requires more time than is 


available between now and February. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I -- I 


think that that needs to be put into the form 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

of a letter, especially in the light of the way 


that their letter was put to us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now the letter part presents a bit 


of a dilemma since the Board has a requirement 


that -- although I can take the sense of the 


Board and -- and draft the letter and agree to 


send it out for -- for editing and then -- and 


then send it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that'd be fine, Paul. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The sense of the letter would 


simply be that the Board will -- has agreed to 


this delay, and that's based largely on the 


fact that we have a number of complex issues 


that need to be resolved and we believe that 


the time should be fruitfully spent in doing 


so. So I -- I can prepare a letter to that 


effect, distribute it to the Board for editing 


purposes and then -- and then send it. 


 MS. MUNN: That seems appropriate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then let -- let me take that as a 


separate motion, though -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in a mo-- in a moment. Mark's 


motion is that we delay action until the May 


meeting. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And we'll need a roll call vote on 


that, Lew. 


 DR. WADE: And I would just clarify, Mark, also 


that the May meeting would be held in Denver. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That the meeting be held in 


Denver. 

 DR. WADE: Okay. Wanda? 

 MS. MUNN: Aye. 

 DR. WADE: Robert? 

 DR. LOCKEY: Can I -- Jim Lockey, can I ask you 


a question first? 


 DR. WADE: Sure. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Paul, we're delaying action 


because -- not because of this letter, but 


we're delaying action because we're not yet -- 


we don't have enough yet -- data yet to make an 


informed decision. Is that correct? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I suspect it would be fair 


to say that it may be both. I -- I was trying 


to ascertain earlier from Mark whether he would 


have wanted a delay in any event, aside from 


the letter. I -- I think, aside from the 


letter, Mark would have been pushing very hard 


to get everything done by the time of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 -- 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

Denver meeting, and we would have had the 


meeting in Denver. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Mark, do you think -- do you think 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think it's the -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: In essence, it's hard to uncouple 


it from the letter, because now that we -- 


we've heard from both the delegation and the 


petitioners, who we thought earlier were 


pressing hard to come to closure but now -- 


regardless of the motivation here, they have 


indicated that they are comfortable with a 


slight delay, and I think this does give the 


workgroup a little breathing room to really be 


able to handle the -- the information and 


review it without -- without feeling like they 


have to shortchange anything because of the 


time pressure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I would just add "the 


workgroup and all interested parties." 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that's the other factor, 


'cause they've --


 DR. ZIEMER: All of the information -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- been following the product -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140

 DR. ZIEMER: -- that the -- even the 


petitioners need the opportunity -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- to review that, as well. This 


-- this gives everybody a -- a better chance to 


really deal with -- with whatever issues are -- 


are forthcoming. So I think it's probably 


both, Jim. 


 DR. LOCKEY: And how does that -- how does that 


rub up against our mandate -- relationship to 


time limitations and action? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we -- we don't have an 


official time limitation. There's not a clock 


tick-- ticking. Our time limitation is only 


one of trying to be timely but thorough. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And we're not under the kind of 


mandate NIOSH is to complete certain things in 


certain times, so we -- we do have the 


opportunity, if we need to -- if we believe we 


need the time to do the job right, to have a 


delay of this sort, which is -- in the scheme 


of things, is not that big a time delay. 


 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: I'll start again. Wanda? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141

 MS. MUNN: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Jim Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 


 (No response) 


Brad, we can't hear you. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: I assume that Drs. Melius and Poston 


are not with us. 


 Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: So eight for, no against. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The motion carries, thank you very 


much. 


Now a motion instructing the Chairman to 


respond to the letter indicating that we are 


indeed going to delay action until the May 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

meeting in order to make sure that the 


workgroup and other interested parties are able 


to thoroughly deal with the emerging issues or 


the -- the -- well, not necessarily emerging, 


but with all the issues that yet have to be 


resolved. 


DR. ROESSLER: So moved. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I would draft -- I would draft 


a letter to that extent -- to that idea and 


distribute it for editing by Board members 


prior to sending. Is there a motion to that 


effect? 


DR. ROESSLER: So moved. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I second that motion. This is 


Bob Presley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now, any discussion? 


 (No responses) 


 Okay -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, and just a 


-- a friendly suggestion as a matter of 


perspective. As we all know, words are 


important and when you use the phrase "delay," 


that has a certain connotation to certain 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

people. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And -- and I -- I would just 


friendlyly (sic), you know, in a friendly way 


suggest that you might consider a different 


phrase, that you withhold action until or -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Withhold or --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- something like that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- postpone? 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Not postpone? 


 MS. MUNN: Why not "reschedule" or -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'll -- "reschedule" might 


be the word. 


 MS. MUNN: Or "move to the May agenda." 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I'll "reschedule action to 


May." Very good. Thank you, Larry. That's a 


good suggestion. 


Any other comments? And again, you'll have an 


opportunity to edit to make sure that the Chair 


doesn't get too far off in some way or another. 


Okay, again, all in favor, signify by "aye" 


when your name is called. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144

 MS. MUNN: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Robert? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 


 (No response) 


Brad? Brad, we can't hear -- 


 MR. CLAWSON: Aye, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Gen? 


DR. ROESSLER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: We do not have Dr. Ziem-- excuse me, 


Dr. Melius or Poston. Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then motion carries and it is so 


ordered. 


FERNALD


 DR. WADE: Our last little bit of business is 


then in February where -- I mean I would put on 


the table the possibility of Cincinnati as it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

relates to Fernald. I -- (unintelligible) of 


the opinion NIOSH will present the Fernald 


petition for the first time in February. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I'll -- I 


would agree to that. That way we'll have all 


of our NIOSH people in one place and it may be 


that by the first day of the meeting that the 


NTS working group could meet or something like 


that. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. LOCKEY: This is Jim Lockey. I think it's 


a great idea to meet in Cincinnati. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I would think --


 DR. WADE: My commitment, if it's -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- well said by the 


representative from Cincinnati. 


 MS. MUNN: How interesting you would say so. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now if the Fernal-- do we know for 


sure the Fernald petition is going to be ready? 


 DR. WADE: Larry? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, it is our every intent to 


have it ready and -- and a very fine 


presentation it will be. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146

 DR. WADE: All I can commit to you is 


everything I can do to make this change. I'll 


have contractual issues I'll have to work 


through, but you know, I'll work through them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So I think the sense of the 


Board is that with -- Cincinnati would be fine. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


DR. ROESSLER: Paul, I have a question -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. ROESSLER: -- this is Gen. Is it still 


expected that the morning -- the dose 


reconstruction subcommittee will meet in the 


morning? In other words, I'm wondering if I 


can -- for planning purposes -- fly in that 


morning. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think we will have the dose 


reconstruction subcommittee scheduled. Lew, is 


that --


 DR. WADE: Correct. I mean I think our 


procedure will be the subcommittee, and also 


the possibility of working groups, although we 


-- we have overlapping membership issues you'll 


have to be cognizant of. But we have a 


subcommittee at 9:00 and possibly time for 


workgroups at 10:30. I would reserve Mark's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

judgment as to how much time the subcommittee 


would need, but yes, the full committee would 


not meet until 1:00 o'clock on that first day. 


DR. ROESSLER: Thank you. That helps. 


MONSANTO AND GENERAL ATOMICS DRAFTS


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Now we -- we still have two 


documents to approve. We have the Monsanto 


draft and you should have all received that now 


with the -- with the rewording. And likewise 


the General Atomics draft. 


Let's start with Monsanto. Basically --


deferred action till later in the meeting. 


I'll simply in a sense call it off the table 


where -- where it's a motion before us. The 


revised draft was distributed by e-mail with 


the -- with the wording changes that we agreed 


to earlier. I'd like to ask if there are any 


other changes, and particularly if any of the ­

- Liz or any of the people on -- General 


Counsel or Department of Labor folks, also any 


wording issues that anyone wishes to raise. 


 (No responses) 


Liz, are you still on the line? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yeah, I'm still on the line, 


but I don't have any wording issues. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And Jeff, are you still on 


the line? 


 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, I'm here. I spoke with Pete 


and we're fine with that wording. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Board members, any final 


changes? 


 (No responses) 


Then this is a motion to recommend approval of 


the SEC petition for Monsanto as delineated in 


the -- both the petition and the recommendation 


from NIOSH. 


Are you ready to vote, Board members? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then if you favor this petition -- 


or recommending this petition to the Secretary, 


say "aye." If not, say "no" or "abstain." 


Roll call? 


 DR. WADE: Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. -- Robert Presley? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Aye. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149

 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Absent, Melius and Poston. Dr. 


Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Motion carries. Thank you very 


much. 


Now the General Atomics, and again the revised 


document was distributed by e-mail a little bit 


ago. Everybody get their copy? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. This one even now has the 


date on it. There are some -- there's a change 


here that I think has been inserted that I 


didn't know that we had agreed to. There's 


some -- my copy has some -- some highlighted 


words that say "this class does not include the 


following buildings at that location: 


technical office building 13, (unintelligible) 


building 1 and -- (unintelligible) building 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

number one, building 14, technical 


(unintelligible) east building number two, 


building 15." 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Dr. Ziemer --


 DR. ZIEMER: Did that get added by -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- this -- this was -- Dr. 


Ziemer, this is Larry Elliott. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: That was language that Dr. Melius 


added in response to Pete Turcic's question. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: So that was clarifying language 


that was in the version that you were working 


with this morning. I don't know that Dr. 


Melius got to that point --


 DR. ZIEMER: No, no, and he had --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- (unintelligible) call. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- we had lost him in -- by then 


so we didn't have him --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- at that point, so this was 


recommended by Dr. Melius. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Right, and -- and certainly, you 


know, we just left it folded so that we could, 


you know, make sure that that was not lost. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

That's the way it was presented to you this 


morning by Dr. Melius. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, my. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So basically --


 MR. ELLIOTT: NIOSH agrees with this language, 


by the way. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and -- and basically that's 


just a clarifying sentence. It would not -- as 


I see it, it would not be in bold in the letter 


to the Secretary. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: This is just emboldened here to 


show us that it had been inserted from the -- 


the copy that we had earlier, I believe, 'cause 


the copy that Melius sent us yesterday did not 


include that. 


 DR. WADE: Right. Now what happened is that 


Pete Turcic then sent a response to Dr. Melius. 


Dr. Melius modified --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh. 


 DR. WADE: -- the letter, and before he was 


able to present that change to you, we -- he 


lost his ability to participate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good. Well, in any event, 


this comes back to us now as -- as a formal 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

152 

motion. That addition which is in bold in the 


new copy I -- I will rule as being a friendly 


amendment 'cause it doesn't change the -- the 


content or change the thrust of the petition, 


simply clarifying language. 


Let me ask if there are any comments or other 


changes? 


 (No responses) 


Appear to be none. Are you ready to vote then? 


 DR. WADE: Could we hear from Department of 


Labor and counsel, as well? Jeff, are you okay 


with this? 


 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, this -- this is Jeff Kotsch. 


Actually, again, I spoke with Pete on this one, 


too, and we're fine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 


 DR. WADE: Liz and the attorneys? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I don't have any comments on 


it. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Liz. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, then are you ready 


to vote? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, sir. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, if -- if you favor 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

recommending this petition to the Secretary, 


say "aye"; if opposed, "no" or "abstain". 


 DR. WADE: Wanda Munn? 

 MS. MUNN: Aye. 

 DR. WADE: Robert Presley? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: James Lockey? 


 DR. LOCKEY: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Brad Clawson? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Gen Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mike Gibson? 


 MR. GIBSON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Mark Griffon? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: We are absent Drs. Poston and 


Melius. Dr. Ziemer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Aye. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So motion carries. Thank you very 


much. I'm looking to see if we have any other 


items to come before the Board today. 


FUTURE MEETINGS


 DR. WADE: I don't think so. The only thing I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154 

would add, if I can find my piece of paper 


here, is in terms of planned actions or 


meetings, all I have on the schedule now is, 


again, the Board meeting on Feb. 7, 8 and 9; a 


subcommittee meeting at 9:00 a.m. on February 


7th; a face-to-face meeting in Cincinnati 


starting at 9:30 on the Rocky Flats site 


profile and SEC petition; a -- 


 MS. MUNN: On the 26th. Right? 


 DR. WADE: The -- did I say the -- yes, the 


26th of January, I'm sorry. 


 MS. MUNN: May I make a request -- 

 DR. WADE: Certainly. 

 MS. MUNN: -- in light of our discussion 

earlier regarding the possibility of my being 


in Joliet the previous day, is it going to foul 


us up too much if we push that meeting back to 


10:00 o'clock? I can get a flight out of 


O'Hare that will get me into -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's fine, Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: -- Cincinnati at 9:30. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so we'll change that to 10:00 


a.m. on the word of the chair. 


 MS. MUNN: I'd appreciate it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'll be coming in that morning, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

too, so --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, 10:00 -- if 10:00's okay with 


you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's good. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley, that's fine. 


I'll be coming in that morning, also. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 DR. WADE: Then we have a workgroup on SEC 


issues including the 250-day issue and 


preliminary review of 83.14s scheduled for a 


face-to-face, Cincinnati, the 17th at 10:00 


a.m. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: We have in the offing a call of the 


workgroup on procedures review, date 


unspecified, to look at the selection of the 


additional procedures to be reviewed. And then 


tangentially we have a worker outreach meeting 


7:00 p.m. in Joliet on the 24th and one on the 


25th related to outreach to Blockson Chemical 


workers. And that's what we've got. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And just for your 


information, tentatively Larry has -- Larry 


Elliott has scheduled, although we don't know 


yet for sure if it'll be firm, the orientation 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156 

for the new members for January 22nd and 23rd. 


Josie, I don't know if that's -- if they've 


already touched base with you on that. 


MS. BEACH: Yes, they have. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and I don't know if we've 


heard from Phillip yet, but Lew and I would be 


meeting with them, as well as Larry's staff, 


but --


 MR. ELLIOTT: That -- that looks like a good 


date, Dr. Ziemer. Right now --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- it looks like everybody 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and is it necessary that 


all the other paperwork be done before that? 


Will they be able to get into -- into the 


databases and so on at that point? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: At the orientation, one of the 


sessions that we provide will be, you know, the 


training in how to access the claims in 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- files, and they'll get the 


Privacy Act training, as well, from Liz and her 


team, and the ethics training, as well. And so 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

it's not necessary, in my mind, that their 


member's paperwork be processed to a point, as 


long as we have those trainings -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: As long as you have the Privacy 


Act training in place. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: We'll operate on that assumption. 


If it changes, we'll let everyone know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, just wanted the Board 


members to know that that was occurring, too. 


So a lot -- lot going on in the next month or 


so. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lot of activities. 


 DR. BEHLING: Dr. Ziemer --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- this is Hans Behling. I just 


wanted to raise a question. Some time ago 


there was some discussion about having a faceto-face meeting regarding the issue of Hanford 


neutron/photon ratio, and there was a tentative 


schedule for next week, I believe, to -- to 


have that meeting in Cincinnati, but I guess 


there was also some comments made by NIOSH that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

they may not be ready, but at this point in 


time I'm not sure whether or not a -- a new 


date has been set and -- and it is ob-- 


obviously Dr. Melius (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. No, I --


 DR. BEHLING: -- is not here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- think Dr. Melius was waiting to 


hear, as well -- as was I -- and so I'm not 


sure we know the answer to that yet, do we? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is -- this is Stu 


Hinnefeld at NIOSH. The -- kind of what we 


consider a key technical resource for this 


discussion, Jack Fix, is essentially 


unavailable until late February, so our view is 


that to have a crucial discussion on the topic, 


we -- we don't think we'd be able to have a 


crucial discussion on the topic until perhaps 


the week of February 25th. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So that'll be delayed, Hans, it 


sounds like. 


 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I -- I just wanted 


clarification and I appreciate that, Stu. 


 DR. WADE: We need to leave the final thought 


on that also to Dr. Melius as the workgroup 


chair. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

159

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay, very good. Anything 


else to come before us? 


 (No responses) 


If not, thank you very much. I'll declare the 


meeting adjourned. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you all. Most productive. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 1:50 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

160 

1 

2 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of Jan. 11, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


8th day of March, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102